Ched Evans

[flying high]

He's most probably under legal advice not to make any gesture that could be seen as admitting guilt, while he still has a legal case

.

Probably this is the answer as to why no apology, plus he maintains he did nothing wrong so nothing to apologise for.

 

[dazzer6666]

Probably this us the answer as to why no apology.

It's a very good point

 

[drew]

He's most probably under legal advice not to make any gesture that could be seen as admitting guilt, while he still has a legal case

Nick Clegg had the best advice really. He should go and play abroad, at least for a while.

For once Nick Clegg is probably right!

 

[flying high]

Sign for a club in Europe then come back to Sheff Utd in Feb on loan? To test the reaction.

 

[Blue Valkyrie]

Sign for a club in Europe then come back to Sheff Utd in Feb on loan?

Not easy when loans in the February loan window can only be from English clubs.

 

[wellquickwoody]

Don't forget the appeals (two to date I think) as well.

Were they not 2 applications for the right to appeal?

 

[flying high]

Not easy when loans in the February loan window can only be from English clubs.

It was a joke. Ok sign for Whitehawk then loan to Sheff Utd.

 

[glasfryn]

Glasfryn I was being a little tounge in cheek.
Do we leave punishment up to the courts or do we feel we have the right to restrict employment and trade after punishment?

in normal circumstances no but this man is very much in the public eye, so everyone should tread very carefully

 

[nwgull]

Yeah, we know what you think about the case. I thought we were discussing the make up of juries and their function in justice? That was far more interesting than your intimate knowledge of female alcohol tolerance.

That's because you brought the subject up.

What are you trying to get at with your last snide sentence about my knowledge of women's alcohol tolerance? One thing I haven't done on this thread is make personal remarks on people's lifestyles or beliefs based on their opinion on this case. That's twice in 24 hours that you have questioned my attitude to women now.

 

[Bold Seagull]

The woman in this case wasn't passed out anyway. Video evidence shows that and the toxicologist report has her at about 2.5x the drink drive limit - drunk but not passed out.

That's because you brought the subject up.

What are you trying to get at with your last snide sentence about my knowledge of women's alcohol tolerance? One thing I haven't done on this thread is make personal remarks on people's lifestyles or beliefs based on their opinion on this case. That's twice in 24 hours that you have questioned my attitude to women now.

It's not snide at all, you have made a definitive claim that she wasn't passed out, you've not stated that as an opinion, you've stated it as if its a fact. A fact that wasn't proved in court, but you seem confident that it is.

It seems you have a collection of posts that primarily challenge the honesty of the victim in this case. There hasn't been any acknowledgement from you that it might well be that the original trial verdict is correct, and the victim is a genuine victim of rape. You may believe it's more likely Evans is telling the truth, but to believe that also has to come with the possibility that he isn't and that the original jury did get it right.

 

[drew]

It's not snide at all, you have made a definitive claim that she wasn't passed out, you've not stated that as an opinion, you've stated it as if its a fact. A fact that wasn't proved in court, but you seem confident that it is.

As far as I'm aware, no evidence was ever presented that confirmed she had passed out, on the contrary, the evidence seems to suggest otherwise. She claimed she couldn't remember anything from leaving the nightclub yet she is on video at a kebab shop for an hour. She is on video walking, unaided, into the hotel foyer. Her friends stated that she wasn't paralytic but was drunk! The doorman heard male and female voices at the door. The only evidence that could be considered as her 'passing out' was the fact she woke up the next morning and couldn't remember what happened. How many people have done that but over a period of time events come back into mind!

The whole tone of your posts is that heaven forbid someone should challenge the decision of a jury. You never contemplate that, no matter how unseemly the sex was, it was consensual.

From my point of view, I don't know whether he raped her or had consensual sex. None of us will ever know. My point has always been that the evidence seems very flimsy to convict someone.

 

[rouseytastic]

Regardless of whether he committed the crime or not (and there is a significant number of pointers that indicate he may well not have done, in the eyes of the law anyway) he was sentenced to 5 years. He has served half that which again lawfully means he is a free man. His sentence was not 5 years, serve half but never ever work again.
I was accussed of a crime against a woman that I didn't commit. I was found not guilty and can carry on as normal but if I'd been found guilty and then never be allowed to work again or provide for my family what then?
Let him play. He's served his time.

 

[marshy68]

It's limited and you know that, any work with children or vulnerable people would need a CRB check and he would fail at the first hurdle. You may not like it but he was convicted by the law of the land. It's not up to people to then add laws because it suits them. Yes maybe changes need to be made and until such time he is free to work.

Couldnt have answered it better.

 

[Bold Seagull]

As far as I'm aware, no evidence was ever presented that confirmed she had passed out, on the contrary, the evidence seems to suggest otherwise. She claimed she couldn't remember anything from leaving the nightclub yet she is on video at a kebab shop for an hour. She is on video walking, unaided, into the hotel foyer. Her friends stated that she wasn't paralytic but was drunk! The doorman heard male and female voices at the door. The only evidence that could be considered as her 'passing out' was the fact she woke up the next morning and couldn't remember what happened. How many people have done that but over a period of time events come back into mind!

The whole tone of your posts is that heaven forbid someone should challenge the decision of a jury. You never contemplate that, no matter how unseemly the sex was, it was consensual.

From my point of view, I don't know whether he raped her or had consensual sex. None of us will ever know. My point has always been that the evidence seems very flimsy to convict someone.

The decision of the jury is a fact, as is the decision not to grant an appeal in the first instance. That is what I've basically been stating. You're dressing that as me not able to contemplate that he might be innocent, but that is just you filling in blanks that aren't there. A conviction isn't the definitive truth, which I've acknowledged, it is at best 'beyond reasonable doubt'. The jury may well have been misdirected on the evidence, or Evan's expensively assembled defence team neglected to demonstrate sufficiently that she was drunk, but able to make decisions. He could yet win an appeal. I don't think I've ever stated my belief in his actual guilt either way, only my belief in his conviction.

I agree with your final point, and in fact the law isn't there to determine actual truth, it is there to determine the most likely probability - hence 'reasonable doubt'.

I don't know if she was completely paralytic, or just a bit drunk - I've not made an opinion either way. I've questioned someone who thinks they know that as definite fact though.

 

[Bold Seagull]

It's limited and you know that, any work with children or vulnerable people would need a CRB check and he would fail at the first hurdle. You may not like it but he was convicted by the law of the land. It's not up to people to then add laws because it suits them. Yes maybe changes need to be made and until such time he is free to work.

Couldnt have answered it better.

So if we signed Evans tomorrow, you'd both be fine with him signing all the kids autographs outside the club shop after a game? Attending the Gully's Christmas Party? Sending out signed photo's of himself in the Young Seagulls Birthday cards? Having his picture on club promotions?

That would all be perfectly fine with you because he is entitled to return to employment as he did before?

 

[keaton]

As far as I'm aware, no evidence was ever presented that confirmed she had passed out, on the contrary, the evidence seems to suggest otherwise. She claimed she couldn't remember anything from leaving the nightclub yet she is on video at a kebab shop for an hour. She is on video walking, unaided, into the hotel foyer. Her friends stated that she wasn't paralytic but was drunk! The doorman heard male and female voices at the door. The only evidence that could be considered as her 'passing out' was the fact she woke up the next morning and couldn't remember what happened. How many people have done that but over a period of time events come back into mind!

The whole tone of your posts is that heaven forbid someone should challenge the decision of a jury. You never contemplate that, no matter how unseemly the sex was, it was consensual.

From my point of view, I don't know whether he raped her or had consensual sex. None of us will ever know. My point has always been that the evidence seems very flimsy to convict someone.

You haven't heard all the evidence. The jury have and they found him guilty

 

[Blue Valkyrie]

So if we signed Evans tomorrow, you'd both be fine with him signing all the kids autographs outside the club shop after a game? Attending the Gully's Christmas Party? Sending out signed photo's of himself in the Young Seagulls Birthday cards? Having his picture on club promotions?

That would all be perfectly fine with you because he is entitled to return to employment as he did before?

Luckily, Tony pretty much ruled out us signing any convicted sex crims at the Seagulls Over London meeting.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

He's served his time.

I do wish people would stop using this phrase.

He has NOT served 'his time'.

He has served a portion of 'his time' and is out on license. He is still effectively serving his sentence, and that comes (or at least, is supposed to) with certain conditions. He is not, as you wish to suggest, free to do exactly as he pleases.

 

[rouseytastic]

I do wish people would stop using this phrase.

He has NOT served 'his time'.

He has served a portion of 'his time' and is out on license. He is still effectively serving his sentence, and that comes (or at least, is supposed to) with certain conditions. He is not, as you wish to suggest, free to do exactly as he pleases.

He is, however, free to earn a living just like everybody else. He has served his time inside.

 

[Hillian1]

He is, however, free to earn a living just like everybody else. He has served his time inside.

Well, we'll have to see about that, because I can't see any club taking him on.

Which pleases me.