Connor Brown

[shaolinpunk]

am i the only one that thinks watching through a window of someone having sex and sitting in the same room all a bit creepy also.

I've never gone home with someone and thought "You know what, I bet my mate would like a go too. Just hold on a sec love, got to make a phone call"

 

[Diego Napier]

Seperate issue entirely, but I do hate how Evans (or anyone found guilty in a court of such an offence) is immediately titled RAPIST. Suddenly all the news stories are along the lines of 'the woman Evans raped' etc etc.

Obviously he's been found guilty but thats in the OPINION of a court.* I always find when something hasn't been actually PROVEN, that calling someone that is quite hard-hitting.

*Please note that I agree this is as fair a judicial system as we can have and obviously have no idea of the ins and outs (pun not intended) of the case.

He's entitled a rapist because that is exactly what he is according to the laws and procedures of our land.

 

[Pot noodles for everyone]

am i the only one that thinks watching through a window of someone having sex and sitting in the same room all a bit creepy also.

I've just worked out who you are. You're that bloke from Newhaven that keeps posting hundreds of posts and then deleting your username and then starting all over again. The avatar suits you.

 

[HawkTheSeagull]

Its innocent until PROVEN GUILTY, he has been proven guilty by the courts and is going to prison, therefore he is not innocent and is a rapist - which is bad for him as he had a decent career ahead of him, whether he can salvage anything of it when he is released will remain to be seen.

 

[mejonaNO12 aka riskit]

Pretty factual discription really. He has been proven to comit the offence in a court of law and therefore is by definition a Rapist. Do you have issues with people like Peter Sutcliffe being called a murder? After all that was only the opinion of a court.

No I get that and i dont disagree with the actions of a court for one moment. But when it's one where nothing has actually been PROVED, i,e there was no video evidence/dna evidence etc then I find it weird to read.

I realised as i posted this that someone would take what I said differently to how I meant it. It's not something i DISAGREE with as the court has it's verfict and I respect that. I just find it odd to read in print that he IS a rapist.

When someone is proved to have killed someone by DNA/video/witnesses/admition then I don't find reading that they are a murderer odd.

 

[Simster]

Seperate issue entirely, but I do hate how Evans (or anyone found guilty in a court of such an offence) is immediately titled RAPIST. Suddenly all the news stories are along the lines of 'the woman Evans raped' etc etc.

Obviously he's been found guilty but thats in the OPINION of a court.* I always find when something hasn't been actually PROVEN, that calling someone that is quite hard-hitting.

*Please note that I agree this is as fair a judicial system as we can have and obviously have no idea of the ins and outs (pun not intended) of the case.

You what? You're 100% wrong. You say it wasn't proven, yet the law of the land operates on the basis of "innocent until proven guilty", so in fact, that is EXACTLY what has happened.

The general tone of your post is that he has been sent to prison on somebody's whim, which seems very odd to me. He's a rapist. Fact (beyond reasonable doubt).

 

[mejonaNO12 aka riskit]

You what? You're 100% wrong. You say it wasn't proven, yet the law of the land operates on the basis of "innocent until proven guilty", so in fact, that is EXACTLY what has happened.

The general tone of your post is that he has been sent to prison on somebody's whim, which seems very odd to me. He's a rapist. Fact (beyond reasonable doubt).

Sigh.

Again, what I've said has been taken out of context. I wrote MANY times that he has been found guilty and I COMPLETELY back that as it has been found in front of a court, jury and judge. That is fair. He must go to prison for it. I dont disagree with ANY of that.

All i said was that I find reading that he RAPED her quite odd funny (not ha ha funny).

Good old NSC.

 

[mejonaNO12 aka riskit]

You're 100% wrong. You say it wasn't proven,

He was proven by a court. thats fine by me. i don't argue with that.

I think everyone agrees that this is one of the MANY cases of 'his word against mine'. I don't know what went on, as do most people, so i have to rely on the court to find a judgement. thats fine.

I just mean, in cases such as these, i often say "He was found guilty of rape", rather than going the full way of calling him a rapist.

It's purely a technicality on my part and not me in ANY way suggesting he is innocent. I have no idea what went on.

 

[Simster]

Sigh.

Again, what I've said has been taken out of context. I wrote MANY times that he has been found guilty and I COMPLETELY back that as it has been found in front of a court, jury and judge. That is fair. He must go to prison for it. I dont disagree with ANY of that.

All i said was that I find reading that he RAPED her quite odd funny (not ha ha funny).

Good old NSC.

No, that *isn't* all you said. You said this:

Obviously he's been found guilty but thats in the OPINION of a court.* I always find when something hasn't been actually PROVEN, that calling someone that is quite hard-hitting.

Which suggests that you don't accept that the rape had been PROVEN. It clearly had, as there is no way on God's earth that Evans would have been convicted without proof beyond reasonable doubt.

 

[Aadam]

Which suggests that you don't accept that the rape had been PROVEN. It clearly had, as there is no way on God's earth that Evans would have been convicted without proof beyond reasonable doubt.

This. You cannot convict someone on a hunch, opinion nor hearsay. You have to have evidence that leaves no doubt.

 

[Simster]

It's purely a technicality on my part and not me in ANY way suggesting he is innocent. I have no idea what went on.

I see what you're trying to say, but you could argue that about almost anyone convicted of any crime that you didn't witness yourself.

 

[Seagull58]

am i the only one that thinks watching through a window of someone having sex and sitting in the same room all a bit creepy also.

Some professional footballers seem to think that is very normal behaviour, and so is filming each other taking turns having sex with a girl. There are numerous examples of this and similar degenerate behaviour by footballers.

 

[mejonaNO12 aka riskit]

I see what you're trying to say, but you could argue that about almost anyone convicted of any crime that you didn't witness yourself.

I think what is with me is IF a conviction eventually got quashed and the convicted individual was really innocent, it wouldn't sit all that comfortably with me that I had been calling him a rapist when
he wasn't.

If I say 'he's been found guilty of rape' I feel safer morally!

 

[deletebeepbeepbeep]

am i the only one that thinks watching through a window of someone having sex and sitting in the same room all a bit creepy also.

I find the whole obsession of footballers wanting to shag somene there mates just shagged a bit creepy T as well TBH. If not creepy then just sleezy. I mean, eugh.

 

[pseudonym]

What I don't genuinely understand is, and forgive my ignorance ...If the victim has no memory of what took place, how did Evans come to be accused? Did other people witness the crime or something?
Edit: With friends like Connor Brown, who needs enemies ?

From what i read it was Evens who booked the room but in McDonald's name, the footage was taken from a mobile phone from one of Evens associates who along with his brother were watching through the window so presumably he had tipped them off on what was happening.

A not-guilty verdict on McDonald was returned first and they had a hug and a head bang, Evens must of been thinking same result for me, then the guilty verdict for Evens, must of hit him harder than a Roberto Carlos free kick.

 

[Barrel of Fun]

Huge amount of support on Twitter for the covicted rapist. #Justiceforched - Twitter

Would anyone really care if he wasn't a footballer?

What is surprising/odd or both, is there are a lot of young girls wanting #justiceforched - jealousy?

 

[NMH]

What seems to be factual in this issue, is that all parties were incredibly stupid.
These teenaged lads so desperate to get laid that they took advantage of the girl's drunken state (I have doubt that they drugged her, that's extreme criminal behavior with forethought to even have those sorts of drugs on them).
For anyone to get in such a stupor that they can be subject to the sexual molestation she claims, yet cannot recall anything about the proceedings and apparently hadn't the ability to struggle against it, is also just very stupid. No, she isn't to be blamed for her plight, but the outcome suggests she is of dubious character also.

Stupid stupid people, the lot of them.

 

[Biscuit]

Seperate issue entirely, but I do hate how Evans (or anyone found guilty in a court of such an offence) is immediately titled RAPIST. Suddenly all the news stories are along the lines of 'the woman Evans raped' etc etc.

Obviously he's been found guilty but thats in the OPINION of a court.* I always find when something hasn't been actually PROVEN, that calling someone that is quite hard-hitting.

*Please note that I agree this is as fair a judicial system as we can have and obviously have no idea of the ins and outs (pun not intended) of the case.

Being accused of being a rape when you're innocent must be the hardest thing in the world. A lot of people will say there's no smoke without fire - utter bullshit. I wish more people would keep their thoughts to themselves and not cast their opinions around like they are fact before a court has ruled.

Leave it to the court to consider the evidence I say.

If they're found guilty, fair enough. If they're not, so be it. Speculating on someones guilt before a court has ruled, on a subject as sensitive as rape is not on.

 

[Falkor]

Suspended now

BBC News - Ched Evans: Sheffield Utds Connor Brown suspended over Twitter rape case posts

 

[keaton]

No I get that and i dont disagree with the actions of a court for one moment. But when it's one where nothing has actually been PROVED, i,e there was no video evidence/dna evidence etc then I find it weird to read.

I realised as i posted this that someone would take what I said differently to how I meant it. It's not something i DISAGREE with as the court has it's verfict and I respect that. I just find it odd to read in print that he IS a rapist.

When someone is proved to have killed someone by DNA/video/witnesses/admition then I don't find reading that they are a murderer odd.

But it has been proved because he's been found guilty, it's that simple