advertisement


Should Ched Evans be playing professional soccer?

I will say it again. Denial of appeal is not an endorsement of the original decision.

Appeals at any level are not re trials. They are an examination if the decision was lawful based upon the grounds of appeal.

Nearly all miscarriages of justice have been lawful decisions of the jury.
 
In see Graham tailor as put his foot in his mouth by comparing Cheds case to Hillsborough fight for justice. An unfortunate comparison. But at least he is focussing on the facts of this conviction which contrary to some comments are crucial to his rehabilitation.

Had he abducted her and raped her no one would be suggesting his rehabilitation should take place in football.

Also the double standard vis a vis Lee Hughes smacks of politics.

Perhaps it is because all the middle class men in the media can empathise with a drink driver.
 
It's impossible to respond to you, Brian. I shall refrain in future.
There was no need for your sarcasm out of the blue but I think you can't help yourself. You could have apologised for it instead of the reply above.

Have you got any stats yet on football violence?

Good post, Matthew.

Yup. Oddly enough, this good post you recognise is the same as I've been saying along with a few other members.
 
Innuendo was mentioned earlier as weak grounds for any assessment of implied meanings or 'truths' and evidence-fair enough.

How about 'I was too pissed to remember if I ever gave consent.' as grounds for being found guilty of rape?

I do wonder if some here only make love to their partner with the local vicar and a solicitor standing outside the bedroom door.

How many here also appreciate this 'too pissed' aspect is equally applicable to sex between married couples......?
 
How about 'I was too pissed to remember if I ever gave consent.' as grounds for being found guilty of rape?

Techinically those weren't the grounds. Even if she'd remembered saying yes the law appears to say that her giving consent might not be relevant.

On the other hand if she remembered saying yes I suspect there would never have been a complaint made and therefore never a case presented to a jury to decide.
 
Techinically those weren't the grounds. Even if she'd remembered saying yes the law appears to say that her giving consent might not be relevant.

On the other hand if she remembered saying yes I suspect there would never have been a complaint made and therefore never a case presented to a jury to decide.

Ah I stand corrected.
 
She never made a complaint of rape.

A complaint was raised (if that's the correct technical term!) - I never said it was by her.

The victim went to the police because she woke up in a hotel room and couldn't remember anything about getting there. If she knew what had happened (and she had recalled consenting) she might not have gone to the police. If she recalled what had happened and knew she hadn't consented the the basis of the case would have been different.
 
As a consequence of your repatative, niave and silly contributions ,I am compelled to ask where you on the jury and now realise your mistake.


I normally wouldn't bother to reply to these comments as they are merely personal attacks but you are such an odious little gobshite I will take the time.

To recap..

what we are dealing with appears to be the rogue decision of a jury who probably convicted him on reputation and the fact he was a footballer

You posted that.

I replied..


Really?

You were there in the jury room during their deliberations?

Or is it just a decision that you disagree with?

As an aside I think that you have posted ( and reposted ) your opinion enough in this thread. If you haven't convinced people yet I suspect that it's not going to happen.

You will note that my reply contains two questions to you.

You replied..

Sorry it is facile in the extreme to take issue with the opinion you quote without dealing with All THAT AS PRECEDED IT.


have you read the thread. When you posted ,what point did you think you were making. Did it have a purpose.

Thanks for your opinion vis a vis my contribution. But if you had bothered to read the thread you will see .
A. I was the first to articulate a position away from the majority.
b. My posts are awesomely informative and have subsequently been adopted by many.
c. You have had nothing useful to say.
d your dislike of me as made you look a prat.

I do believe there is an ignore button, I normally think it is childish to use this but in your case it must surely be in your best interests

I didn't reply to any of this as it was all personally aimed at me and not the topic...however I now will.

I didn't need to deal with all that proceeded my quote as I was asking a particular and pertinent question raised by your comment about the juries decision; namely that you thought that the jury "convicted him on reputation and the fact he was a footballer"

Q "have you read the thread. ?"
Yes I have read the whole of this thread very carefully.
Q. " When you posted ,what point did you think you were making.?"
When I posted I was not making a point..I was asking you a question ( which you still haven't answered)

As to your points a to d...
c, I have nothing useful to say?..you base this upon me asking you one question?
d, My dislike of you?..were on earth do you extrapolate this from? Me asking you a question?

You then posted this...

A niave distasteful attitude to sex and women which is prevelant in our culture is not deserving of a prison sentence.

I posted this..

He got a prison sentence for RAPE. Not for being distasteful.

You disagreeing with that juries opinion is neither here nor there. You were not on that jury.

Which elicited this from you...

As a consequence of your repatative, niave and silly contributions ,I am compelled to ask where you on the jury and now realise your mistake.

Repetitive?... I have posted twice on this thread.You?... thirty times! 10% of all the posts on here.

Niave and silly? I have quoted my posts above for all to see. I will leave this to others to judge.

No,I was not on the jury ..never hinted that I was and never made any claims to know just what this particular jury thought..unlike you.
 
I do hope you feel better for that .

I liked the "odious little gobshite" comment it made me and probably gassor laugh.

I am at a loss to see a point worth responding to in the rest of your meanderings and somewhat jaundiced recounting of past posts . If you have a point to make for heavens sake make it clearly and concisely . Ta .
 
In see Graham tailor as put his foot in his mouth by comparing Cheds case to Hillsborough fight for justice. An unfortunate comparison. But at least he is focussing on the facts of this conviction which contrary to some comments are crucial to his rehabilitation.

Had he abducted her and raped her no one would be suggesting his rehabilitation should take place in football.

Also the double standard vis a vis Lee Hughes smacks of politics.

Perhaps it is because all the middle class men in the media can empathise with a drink driver.
You've pinned it on the wrong man there. Gordon Taylor is the guy in question.
 
You've pinned it on the wrong man there. Gordon Taylor is the guy in question.

oops , yes . I always get them mixed up .

Apologies graham - , I bet you did not like that .

gordon taylor is of course the man the sun gave £800,000 to for seemingly no reason at all .
 
Also the double standard vis a vis Lee Hughes smacks of politics.
It's not a 'double standard' because the cases are completely different.

Perhaps it is because all the middle class men in the media can empathise with a drink driver.
Hughes wasn't convicted of drink-driving. He didn't appeal his conviction, and when released he said 'sorry' and shut up about it.

If this Ched chap had followed that example perhaps this rather unpleasantly judgemental thread wouldn't be running.

Paul
 
It's not a 'double standard' because the cases are completely different.


Hughes wasn't convicted of drink-driving. He didn't appeal his conviction, and when released he said 'sorry' and shut up about it.

If this Ched chap had followed that example perhaps this rather unpleasantly judgemental thread wouldn't be running.

Paul

Given the undisputed facts .

would you .

A] not have engaged in sex with this girl ?

b] admitted your guilt .


Also you cant deny killing some one with your car . He did run from the scene in an attempt to avoid being found drunk.

ched said what he should have said upon his release yesterday largely it would seem as a consequence of poor advise and a failure to grasp how his case would be used as a political football .
 


advertisement


Back
Top