Grateful that we are not a League One club

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

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.

didnt say he was on the register you did, he is on licence as he hasnt completed his sentance yet same as ched and subject to terms and conditions the same as ched. They are both ex convicts who happend to be footballers except Luke's crime was far worse than cheds.
------------------------



[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] issued an apology that keeps in line with his believed innocence and depending case review.

Right I'm calling the RSPCA.

Luke McCormick is not under exactly the same conditions as Ched Evans.

Suggesting that he is is factually wrong.

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

Luke McCormick is not under exactly the same conditions as Ched Evans.

Suggesting that he is is factually wrong.

didnt do that either baba so please stop stirring. He is under licence that comes with its own terms he must stick too like ched does.

Mock Cuncher wrote:

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.

This joke was funny though, yeah?

Iggy wrote:

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.

Is there a list of serious offences please?
Governance of rehabilitation of offenders should be controlled by Government not by employers or associations.
You do not fail DBS checks. The check will show offences and the prospective employer then has the choice to employ or not. In my work we have a ''designated risk assessment officer'' but we do ask applicants if they have any convictions that will show up. The big question mark if they say ''no'' is if the check reveals something. Why didn't they mention it?

tigertony wrote:

Iggy wrote:

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.

Is there a list of serious offences please?
Governance of rehabilitation of offenders should be controlled by Government not by employers or associations.
You do not fail DBS checks. The check will show offences and the prospective employer then has the choice to employ or not. In my work we have a ''designated risk assessment officer'' but we do ask applicants if they have any convictions that will show up. The big question mark if they say ''no'' is if the check reveals something. Why didn't they mention it?

Dunno Tone, maybe I'll start one, Rape, Murder.....

Iggy wrote:

tigertony wrote:

Iggy wrote:

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.

Is there a list of serious offences please?
Governance of rehabilitation of offenders should be controlled by Government not by employers or associations.
You do not fail DBS checks. The check will show offences and the prospective employer then has the choice to employ or not. In my work we have a ''designated risk assessment officer'' but we do ask applicants if they have any convictions that will show up. The big question mark if they say ''no'' is if the check reveals something. Why didn't they mention it?

Dunno Tone, maybe I'll start one, Rape, Murder.....

being 17 and drinking cider with a meal at an event

The Ched Evans case is not a judgement of the victim's character. It is a test of whether Ched Evans sexually took advantage of a woman, when she either didn't consent or was in no fit state to consent - that is the letter of the law. Most rape cases don't even make it to trial, and it's very rare for someone to be falsely convicted of rape. The jury in the trial had far more evidence available to them than we do, and reached the decision that Evans was guilty of rape. He's already had one appeal thrown out.

Sure, there have been some terrible comments from the anti-Evans brigade, such as the death threats to members of the Oldham board, but it's come from both sides. The main braying mob in this case is the internet bullies who have named the victim and forced her to change her identity and move house FIVE times. So much for 'winning big'.

The key issue is that Ched Evans has shown no remorse, unlike, for example, Luke McCormick. McCormick's crime was awful, but he has admitted to his terrible mistake and will live with it with the rest of his life. He's far less likely to re-offend than Evans, who, while he has 'served his time' has shown no admission of rape, which I consider to be an important part of rehabilitation. Drink-driving is a terrible crime, but it's rightly stigmatised. Ched Evans is seen by many to have done nothing wrong: but he's never denied having sex with a woman much more drunk than himself.

MannameadGreen wrote:

The Ched Evans case is not a judgement of the victim's character. It is a test of whether Ched Evans sexually took advantage of a woman, when she either didn't consent or was in no fit state to consent - that is the letter of the law. Most rape cases don't even make it to trial, and it's very rare for someone to be falsely convicted of rape. The jury in the trial had far more evidence available to them than we do, and reached the decision that Evans was guilty of rape. He's already had one appeal thrown out.

Sure, there have been some terrible comments from the anti-Evans brigade, such as the death threats to members of the Oldham board, but it's come from both sides. The main braying mob in this case is the internet bullies who have named the victim and forced her to change her identity and move house FIVE times. So much for 'winning big'.

The key issue is that Ched Evans has shown no remorse, unlike, for example, Luke McCormick. McCormick's crime was awful, but he has admitted to his terrible mistake and will live with it with the rest of his life. He's far less likely to re-offend than Evans, who, while he has 'served his time' has shown no admission of rape, which I consider to be an important part of rehabilitation. Drink-driving is a terrible crime, but it's rightly stigmatised. Ched Evans is seen by many to have done nothing wrong: but he's never denied having sex with a woman much more drunk than himself.

Do you think Clayton MacDonald did anything wrong 10 minutes before Evans did? The Jury didn't.

Nobody can appeal a Jury decision or indeed a Judge's decision unless there has been mistake in interpreting the law. The Appeal Judges deemed the trial Judge did not make any error in law. Evans now has to go through the Criminal Cases Review Commission with the new evidence and the commission will rule if the Jury verdict is unsafe or not.

MannameadGreen wrote:

The Ched Evans case is not a judgement of the victim's character. It is a test of whether Ched Evans sexually took advantage of a woman, when she either didn't consent or was in no fit state to consent - that is the letter of the law. Most rape cases don't even make it to trial, and it's very rare for someone to be falsely convicted of rape. The jury in the trial had far more evidence available to them than we do, and reached the decision that Evans was guilty of rape. He's already had one appeal thrown out.

Sure, there have been some terrible comments from the anti-Evans brigade, such as the death threats to members of the Oldham board, but it's come from both sides. The main braying mob in this case is the internet bullies who have named the victim and forced her to change her identity and move house FIVE times. So much for 'winning big'.

The key issue is that Ched Evans has shown no remorse, unlike, for example, Luke McCormick. McCormick's crime was awful, but he has admitted to his terrible mistake and will live with it with the rest of his life. He's far less likely to re-offend than Evans, who, while he has 'served his time' has shown no admission of rape, which I consider to be an important part of rehabilitation. Drink-driving is a terrible crime, but it's rightly stigmatised. Ched Evans is seen by many to have done nothing wrong: but he's never denied having sex with a woman much more drunk than himself.

never take up studying law

MannameadGreen wrote:

The Ched Evans case is not a judgement of the victim's character. It is a test of whether Ched Evans sexually took advantage of a woman, when she either didn't consent or was in no fit state to consent - that is the letter of the law. Most rape cases don't even make it to trial, and it's very rare for someone to be falsely convicted of rape. The jury in the trial had far more evidence available to them than we do, and reached the decision that Evans was guilty of rape. He's already had one appeal thrown out.

Sure, there have been some terrible comments from the anti-Evans brigade, such as the death threats to members of the Oldham board, but it's come from both sides. The main braying mob in this case is the internet bullies who have named the victim and forced her to change her identity and move house FIVE times. So much for 'winning big'.

The key issue is that Ched Evans has shown no remorse, unlike, for example, Luke McCormick. McCormick's crime was awful, but he has admitted to his terrible mistake and will live with it with the rest of his life. He's far less likely to re-offend than Evans, who, while he has 'served his time' has shown no admission of rape, which I consider to be an important part of rehabilitation. Drink-driving is a terrible crime, but it's rightly stigmatised. Ched Evans is seen by many to have done nothing wrong: but he's never denied having sex with a woman much more drunk than himself.

The question remains, Why would you admit to something you deny ?

But that's the thing. He seems to accept what he's done, he just doesn't think it's rape.

I mean, rape is rape but he hasn't gone out of his way and forced himself upon a young girl or so we think. If she can't remember then she was too drunk to give permission to sex and so he took advantage of her, that, is rape.

Now, it's not a severe rape but if he doesn't realise that it still is a form of rape then it's a fairly big issue. Who's more of a danger to society, the person who made a stupid, drunken mistake which ended with tragic consequences or the man who doesn't understand what rape is?

Just because someone has a website it doesn't mean that they're telling the truth. Despite what I saw on Twitter today, "He's got a website and seems fairly certain so he must be innocent." Ffs. How bleddy stupid can you get?

You're tying yourself in knots, if she was too drunk to remember anything, 1) How does she know he raped her ? 2) How does she know she didn't give her consent ?

Josh Pope wrote:

But that's the thing. He seems to accept what he's done, he just doesn't think it's rape.

I mean, rape is rape but he hasn't gone out of his way and forced himself upon a young girl or so we think. If she can't remember then she was too drunk to give permission to sex and so he took advantage of her, that, is rape.

Now, it's not a severe rape but if he doesn't realise that it still is a form of rape then it's a fairly big issue. Who's more of a danger to society, the person who made a stupid, drunken mistake which ended with tragic consequences or the man who doesn't understand what rape is?

Just because someone has a website it doesn't mean that they're telling the truth. Despite what I saw on Twitter today, "He's got a website and seems fairly certain so he must be innocent." Ffs. How bleddy stupid can you get?

OK - for the last time - Do you think Clayton MacDonald raped the girl 10 minutes before Evans did? The Jury didn't.

Without knowing the complete facts of the case and the conviction there has to be something of interest worth looking into for the CPS to persuade a review into the conviction after an appeal upheld the original verdict.


[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]  

"Bumbling PFA chief Gordon Taylor has found himself under intense scrutiny once again after he compared the plight of convicted rapist Ched Evans with that of the Hillsborough families."

big error to bring them up but having listened to the audio bit i see what he is saying but its sill an poor error to use them to explain a point.

tigertony wrote:

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''

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Take a peek and see if you think this is a woman who is too pissed to say no.

Josh Pope wrote:

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

God but you're a dick for a kid, at least Franny has had decades to become such a tw@.

Firstly she had no intention to make a complaint until she was talked into it by the police when she went to report a missing bag, the ridiculous assertion that she might be ok to shag Donaldson but then do off her head ten minutes later is such utter bull shit, I was completely unable to believe that the fook wits on the jury could find one man guilty and the other blameless, then I remembered the morons the last time I did jury duty.

Some of the posters on here remind me of them.

I know for a fact that many people on here haven't read the case files and have only read Ched Evans's PR site.

Because if you'd gone into it with a truly balanced approach and actually read the case notes, rather than being determined to see one side of the argument, you would know exactly why Donaldson was aqquited and Evans was convicted.

It's all there. It's a public document. Look it up.

MannameadGreen wrote:

He's already had one appeal thrown out.

You can't even get a little thing like that right can you?

There was no leave to appeal.

This place is very much the home of the clueless dumb ass.

GreenSam wrote:

I know for a fact that many people on here haven't read the case files and have only read Ched Evans's PR site.

Because if you'd gone into it with a truly balanced approach and actually read the case notes, rather than being determined to see one side of the argument, you would know exactly why Donaldson was aqquited and Evans was convicted.

It's all there. It's a public document. Look it up.

he was a better shag?

It would appear that the death threats directed at Oldham have been somewhat exaggerated.

Quote :

Ched Evans and Oldham: GM Police statement: No death or sexual threats to anyone associated with Oldham Athletic been reported to police.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Have you read all the case notes as Sam suggests Tis?

Josh Pope wrote:

I mean, rape is rape

Josh Pope wrote:

Now, it's not a severe rape

Where's the Face-palm smiley when you need it ?