Grateful that we are not a League One club

Josh Pope wrote:

By definition, taking advantage of someone that drunk is rape.

Oh really? Just how drunk was she? Do you know beyond any reasonable doubt?

"As this case revolves around the issue of intoxication and consent, it should be noted that it is established in the case of R V Bree that drunken consent to sexual intercourse is nevertheless consent in the eyes of the law. This does not mean that if a person is unconscious through drink or drugs it is acceptable to have sex with that person but rather, where an intoxicated person is functioning and able to make conscious decisions at the time of intercourse and then subsequently regrets that decision and decides to make a complaint of rape, her self-inflicted intoxication ought not to be considered as relevant to the issue of consent."

Interesting one this, it is being said that he shows no remorse but he says he is innocent, why would you be remorseful for something you didn't do? I think the best thing all could have done was to wait until after the appeal.
On the wider argument I still think that punishment should happen thought he justice system not through the media/workplace.

Is this really any different from Luke's situation ?

Tringreen wrote:

Is this really any different from Luke's situation ?

Not all and i would say his crime was far worse than Ched's.

Tringreen wrote:

Is this really any different from Luke's situation ?

Apart from the nature of the offence the biggest difference is that Ched Evans has always vehemently maintained his innocence. Luke had a terrible accident that he could have prevented. Evans it was said intentionally raped a drunk girl. And having now read as much of the public domain evidence as I can find I think his conviction looks extremely unsafe. There is tremendous doubt about the case not proof beyond a reasonable one. He wouldn't be the first person to fall foul of a colossal miscarriage of justice.

Perhaps we ought to go for him. We've got 'previous' and it would be hypocritical if those who've welcomed Luke back, joined the howling mob ?

ps We could do with a decent striker to partner Reuben. I'm sure the Ocean City would be bold enough give another sinner a chance.

Hitch,

You don't actually have to have 'intentionally raped' a drunk girl. If there was no consent, and Evans had no reasonable ground to think that there was consent, it doesn't stop being rape because 'oh, I didn't intend it'. Without meaning to sound patronising, try reading the case court records which are a public document rather than Evans's own PR site.


Anyway, Oldham are looking like cancelling the deal to sign him now anyway.

There but for the grace of God an' all that. That's unless no ATDer has ever had a 'liaison' with a girl who was bladdered and unable to sign the consent form?

Scary really innit ?

I still unsure how one guy in a threesome is legit and the other is out right rape

Sign him up and adopt this as our club song.....................

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

Nobody likes us and we don't care.

None of this should make any difference, guilty/not guilty, remorseful/not remorseful, this man has served the sentence meted out by a court of law and should not be prevented from continuing his life and career. It's nothing less than mob rule from the self righteous, professionally offended, some of whom have no problem worshipping at the alter of the likes of 'super' Luke.

Amen to that.

GreenSam wrote:

Hitch,

You don't actually have to have 'intentionally raped' a drunk girl. If there was no consent, and Evans had no reasonable ground to think that there was consent, it doesn't stop being rape because 'oh, I didn't intend it'. Without meaning to sound patronising, try reading the case court records which are a public document rather than Evans's own PR site.


Anyway, Oldham are looking like cancelling the deal to sign him now anyway.

Sam - I've studied law and the available court records in this case - I know what I'm talking about but thanks for the patronising advice nevertheless.

I was making the contrast with Luke's horrific accident, the results of which were not his premeditated intention - and Evans's intention to have sexual intercourse with this drunk girl which clearly was . Hope that is now clear for you.

Team Ched are using untrue "facts"on social media about McCormick's case like he drove off/ran away after killing the kids on purpose to strengthen their argument for Ched to be allowed to play again.

Piers Morgan (the tosser) is stirring it too.

Hitch wrote:

GreenSam wrote:

Hitch,

You don't actually have to have 'intentionally raped' a drunk girl. If there was no consent, and Evans had no reasonable ground to think that there was consent, it doesn't stop being rape because 'oh, I didn't intend it'. Without meaning to sound patronising, try reading the case court records which are a public document rather than Evans's own PR site.


Anyway, Oldham are looking like cancelling the deal to sign him now anyway.

Sam - I've studied law and the available court records in this case - I know what I'm talking about but thanks for the patronising advice nevertheless.

I was making the contrast with Luke's horrific accident, the results of which were not his premeditated intention - and Evans's intention to have sexual intercourse with this drunk girl which clearly was . Hope that is now clear for you.

You may well have studied law and the court records but I was only going on your postings- providing only a link to Evans's PR site doesn't exactly indicate and objective or unbiased view. Of course now I know that then I won't make patronising comments but you can hardly blame me with what you gave me to work with.

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

time to get him involved?

Angry wrote:

Tringreen wrote:

Is this really any different from Luke's situation ?

Not all and i would say his crime was far worse than Ched's.

Agreed.

The Argyle fan base are still split on his return here, i believe.

VillageGreen wrote:

Angry wrote:

Tringreen wrote:

Is this really any different from Luke's situation ?

Not all and i would say his crime was far worse than Ched's.

Agreed.

The Argyle fan base are still split on his return here, i believe.

I wasn't against him playing again as he had reformed etc etc I was against him coming back here because of Forza Nerde and how they will cheer him like he is a hero which they did and still do. Im ok with him here now more because he keeps a low profile and just gets on with the job but the over the top cheering off him still makes me very uncomfortable.

How would everybody feel if we signed him, he scored 15 goals and we went up as champions?

Unhappy and it would soil it for me. That's my honest answer speaking only for myself.

I think it would take the gloss off it for a lot of fans if not most, me included.

Iggy wrote:

How would everybody feel if we signed him, he scored 15 goals and we went up as champions?

Absolutely wouldn't be an issue for me - whether he retains ability is another question.

Depends on how he conducts himself off the field and he has actually reformed.

No one booed luke when he saved us on saturday, no one would not celebrae a ched evans argyle goal. Sighn him. Hes served his time after being found guilty in court of law