Off Topic The Ched Evans to Oldham decision is...

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
HCAFC (Airlie Tiger) said:
This is why those affirming his guilt by stating his appeals have been turned down are fundamentally wrong.

The judge could believe the guilty verdict is dodgy, but he will not grant an appeal unless he believes a re-trial on the current or additional evidence has a good chance of changing the verdict.

Obviously they don't believe anything would change with the current evidence and Evans couldn't provide enough new evidence to convince them otherwise.

The judge isn't there to make a decision on the subject of the appeals guilt, they are deciding if it is necessary and worthwhile to grant a re-trial.
Click to expand...

Bang on.
 
Mr. Hat said:
He's not served his time, he's spent 2 and a half years of a 5 year sentence in prison. He's been released but he still has 2 and a half years left to serve.

I personally don't think it was rape, and I think if his case is taken seriously it will be overturned, but I don't think he should return to football until his sentence is finished or his conviction is overturned, whichever comes first.
Click to expand...

What makes you think it wasn't taken seriously during his trial?
 
i just woke up , was about to read up on the hostage situation in France when a pic of Bruce on the BBC hompage caught my eye and a headline that he is pro Evans getting back into football questioning his verdict

why is he getting involved For ****s sake ??
next Allam will be signing him and dressing him up as the mascot
 
His girlfriend has stood by him in all of this and obviously does not believe he is guilty, well done her. Steve Bruce is entitled to his opinion as is everyone else on here or does he only have an opinion when you allow him to have one?
 
really, ALL it's about, is people hold footballers up as role models... people that kick a piece of leather around for 90 minutes per week.
And get paid handsomely for it.
Whether he is guilty or not doesn't seem to matter in most peoples eyes. Most school kids want to either become professional footballers or WAGS, because the media in this country holds it up as the thing to be.
"Falling out of nightclubs, shagging 10 birds a night" - all seen as laudible, when actually, working hard and becoming a teacher or a fireman should be people's goals.

It begs the question: "Is holding him up as a role model lazy parenting?
 
  • Like
Reactions: captain caveman
Charlie1 said:
Do you think the MacDonald case was dealt with fairly because you agreed with the result and because you don't agree with the Evans result you feel he wasn't dealt with fairly? Just asking.
Click to expand...

You didn't need to put the last sentence, Charlie 1; not unless you are being a tad disingenuous, but I'm sure you're not, hey. But my answer is simple, I, like many others have read a great deal about these cases, their investigation, subsequent trial and, in the case of Evans, his applications for leave to appeal and sentence reduction; so I have formed an opinion on that which leads me to believe that the principle of Justice (as opposed to law) was applied fairly in the case of MacDonald, but has left me far from convinced the same can be said in the case of Evans (due to some fairly glaring anomalies in finding culpability) - which is why I welcome this next stage of the legal process, the review currently underway; hopefully, when it concludes we will all understand this law change better than we do. I think the Evans judgement flimsy by taking into account what is in the public domain and the application of common-sense, but perhaps there is more we do not know. Obi states this as a fact, I have not seen anywhere else that it is. have you?
 
Obadiah said:
He applied for leave to appeal. His application was heard by a single judge and refused. By putting in an application he was making an appeal against his conviction. The first step in that process was refused. He then appealed against the decision to refuse him leave to appeal which was considered by three judges. This was his second attempt to get his conviction squashed. The three judges looked at the evidence presented to the jury to consider whether the decision to acquit MacDonald and convict Evans was irrational. They decided that the decisions of the jury weren't irrational and presented no grounds for appeal. They also considered the judges directions and the additional medical evidence presented by Evans. After considering all that they decided to refuse leave to appeal knowing that he would remain a convicted rapist. As part of this hearing Evans asked for his sentence to be reduced, that was also refused.

Evans in trying to overturn his conviction has had two hearings before 4 judges. I consider them appeals but if you want to be pedantic then you are right. On the evidence provided the justice system didn't think he deserved an appeal.

I don't know where that gets you though unless you think every convicted criminal who pleaded not guilty should have an automatic right to a full Court of Appeal hearing to overturn their conviction.
Click to expand...

FFS man, you are being pedantic to the point of stupidity. I think everyone but you realises that the 'Appeal' in question is that for which he applied, was refused and he then contested that refusal and was refused, so it never happened - the only appeal that could directly overturn his conviction. If you cannot stretch your pedantic, tunnelled thinking to focus on the final objective of the applications, refusals and reapplications (yes, you can use appeal here, but it is the wrong one and it seems to confuse you), then it really is not a worthwhile discussion to continue. The point is he never, once, was granted leave to APPEAL, it didn't take place. <doh>

Edit (16:26):

Evans in trying to overturn his conviction has had two hearings before 4 judges. I consider them appeals but if you want to be pedantic then you are right. On the evidence provided the justice system didn't think he deserved an appeal.
I don't know where that gets you though unless you think every convicted criminal who pleaded not guilty should have an automatic right to a full Court of Appeal hearing to overturn their conviction.
Click to expand...

I just read this part properly - it's not me being pedantic, it is you using terms that confuse the discussion; as you say, I am right and at long last we can speak of things correctly.

The rest of it is something you said before and it was hogwash before, too. I believe the justice process should take it's course and in this case it is doing just that, the route that investigates a claim of an incorrect verdict of guilty. I will leave it to the justice system to look into that and offer us their conclusion when they are ready, perhaps you might do the same and stop telling me what you think I am thinking and believing.
 
Last edited:
PattyNchips2 said:
really, ALL it's about, is people hold footballers up as role models... people that kick a piece of leather around for 90 minutes per week.
And get paid handsomely for it.
Whether he is guilty or not doesn't seem to matter in most peoples eyes. Most school kids want to either become professional footballers or WAGS, because the media in this country holds it up as the thing to be.
"Falling out of nightclubs, shagging 10 birds a night" - all seen as laudible, when actually, working hard and becoming a teacher or a fireman should be people's goals.

It begs the question: "Is holding him up as a role model lazy parenting?
Click to expand...
I actually agree with that. There aren't many footballers who I would consider "role models", but that doesn't mean I wouldn't want their job!
 
Fez said:
FFS man, you are being pedantic to the point of stupidity. I think everyone but you realises that the 'Appeal' in question is that for which he applied, was refused and he then contested that refusal and was refused, so it never happened - the only appeal that could directly overturn his conviction. If you cannot stretch your pedantic, tunnelled thinking to focus on the final objective of the applications, refusals and reapplications (yes, you can use appeal here, but it is the wrong one and it seems to confuse you), then it really is not a worthwhile discussion to continue. The point is he never, once, was granted leave to APPEAL, it didn't take place. <doh>
Click to expand...

He wasn't granted leave to apply because the conviction was "safe" in the opinion of the initial judge hearing his application and three appeal court judges who heard his appeal against that decision. My apologies for using the wrong terminology.
 
Fez said:
FFS man, you are being pedantic to the point of stupidity. I think everyone but you realises that the 'Appeal' in question is that for which he applied, was refused and he then contested that refusal and was refused, so it never happened - the only appeal that could directly overturn his conviction. If you cannot stretch your pedantic, tunnelled thinking to focus on the final objective of the applications, refusals and reapplications (yes, you can use appeal here, but it is the wrong one and it seems to confuse you), then it really is not a worthwhile discussion to continue. The point is he never, once, was granted leave to APPEAL, it didn't take place. <doh>

Edit (16:26):



I just read this part properly - it's not me being pedantic, it is you using terms that confuse the discussion; as you say, I am right and at long last we can speak of things correctly.

The rest of it is something you said before and it was hogwash before, too. I believe the justice process should take it's course and in this case it is doing just that, the route that investigates a claim of an incorrect verdict of guilty. I will leave it to the justice system to look into that and offer us their conclusion when they are ready, perhaps you might do the same and stop telling me what you think I am thinking and believing.
Click to expand...

We have agreement. I'll stop telling you what you think or believe.
 
Charlie1 said:
It takes a big man to admit he is wrong. Are you saying even though you do agree with Patty on this that you can't say it out loud?
Click to expand...

To be honest, I hadn't even read what he said, it generally tends to be a pointless exercise. <laugh>

I would agree though, if you're looking for role models, the last place you should look is on a footballer pitch.
 
Obadiah said:
He wasn't granted leave to apply because the conviction was "safe" in the opinion of the initial judge hearing his application and three appeal court judges who heard his appeal against that decision. My apologies for using the wrong terminology.
Click to expand...

I don't believe I, or anyone else has ever disagreed with that. Apology accepted, no problem. Phew! <ok>
 
originallambrettaman said:
To be honest, I hadn't even read what he said, it generally tends to be a pointless exercise. <laugh>

I would agree though, if you're looking for role models, the last place you should look is on a footballer pitch.
Click to expand...

If role models are needed, they can be found in many places, including football pitches. It is stupid though, to adopt a footballer as a role model simply because he/she plays football. No broad-brush for or against.
 
originallambrettaman said:
Bang on.
Click to expand...

Although I'd be surprised if a judge thought him innocent and didn't find a way to say the conviction was unsafe and grant him leave to appeal as a result of new evidence or the judges directions or the different verdicts given to him and MacDonald.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back