I think Gordon Taylor used Hillsbrough as an example because it is well known to all football fans. He could have used any number of cases where the people blamed for things have been cleared years later, but not everyone would recall them
There's plenty of examples he could have used that aren't such obvious hot button topics that are well known. For example, Bobby Moore and the bracelet during the 1970 World Cup or, slightly more up to date, Spurs fans being wrongly accused of being anti-Semitic hatemongers by some agenda-pushing ****tard who got far too much publicity.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/30742947 Steve Bruce has not held back in expressing his forthright views on Evans! I wouldn't have risked courting controversy if I was in his shoes as a high profile PL manager, but he makes a valid point.
I think that Bruce overcomplicated it a bit and he'll get a ton of stick, but I can see where he's coming from. No idea why he decided that it was a good idea to speak up, though. Edit: Just read that Bruce's daughter is mates with Evans' missus. Might explain the decision to talk.
I still can't see how a police man may be killed doing his duty while people will say it's cruel to put their killers "to sleep"! What chance does the policeman have if the laws not trying to put a stop to it by the correct punishment. It won't stop all killers but it will make others stop and think! I agree,putting killers behind bars makes them worse and when they get out....watch out!
What valid point? This is a rape case which essentially depends on whether the jury believed Evans or the woman he raped. The jury convicted him. He has been running a campaign to over-turn the decision mostly based on his view that the woman consented and then lied. he might truly believe that but it doesn't make him innocent unless it is true. UK law is black and white on this - he is either guilty or innocent. If he is guilty he is a convicted rapist and no sane employer would give him any sort of job while he was out on licence and probably long after that. If he is the victim of a miscarriage of justice then he needs to get that sorted out before he does anything else.
its a ridiculous situation. Here we have a law that states that a man who, in the majority of cases, will be as intoxicated by alcohol as the woman being put in the position of having to judge if she is in a fit state to consent to sex, or not. Get it wrong and you go away for 5-7 years.
In the modern world, you cannot have the state dishing out violent punishments. The state is there to stop violence not create more. State sponsored murder, the execution of murders, is barbaric. Also, there seems to be an expectation for the prison system to be correctional when it's clearly not set up to do that. Prison is to protect the general public and punish crimes through lose of liberty. Would you like to be locked up in a cage overnight with a violent criminal? How about week, or year or two?
All communities tend to establish their own codes of behavior and Spurs not606 is no exception. I think it's fair to say that we have a high level of debate with plenty of healthy disagreement but conducted in a civilized manner without personal abuse. This attracts people who enjoy that environment and repels others who do not. Just have a look around the forum and you will find that each board has it's own modus operandi and it's own distinct character. Overall I think the Spurs board is amongst the best and includes some of the very best posters. If our football team was as good as us we would be top 3 every year. Well done guys
The valid point was that Evans has done his time and should be allowed to play. The conviction stands but is be looked at by the CCRC with a view to an appeal. The jury decided that the victim was too drunk to be able to give consent. This was despite the jury also finding that she was able to consent to sex with the co-defendant McDonald. Bruce is right when he says that Evans may have a case. From what I've read of the evidence, nobody involved in the incident behaved in a way that does them any credit. This issues are not black and white. The common perception of rape is a premeditated attack by a man on a woman involving extreme violence and coercion where the offender is a sexual predator and the victim is a passive bystander - usually a stranger- who has been violated. The reality with many reported rapes is that the accused and the accuser are known to each other, there has been consent to some sexual contact and the accused is alleged to have either gone beyond what was consented to or has taken advantage of the accuser's inability to consent through drink. Frequently, both parties are extremely drunk, cannot recall events clearly and there are no independent witnesses. Many cases are therefore never charged, let alone come before a jury. The idea that the jury's verdict is unimpeachable may be the mantra the authorities trot out to maintain faith in the system, but how on earth can any jury be sure about events in this kind of scenario?
Execution is barbaric? What do you call murder of a victim? Good healthy fun? Looks to me like perpretrater is the winner.....according to some people! p.s.Bill Cosby didn't do it....according to his attorney. Sorry about the 20+ women who have come forward to confirm this lie.
Murder is wrong. It's the most heinous of crimes. Taking a life is unacceptable no matter whether it's done by a criminal or an executioner. Executing the murderer doesn't not bring the victim back. Is it retribution for the family? If we are after a severe punishment, is a lifetime of incarceration not more fitting? I also know that murderers are often 'sick in the head'. No one in their right mind murders another human being. What sort of sociality do we live in if we terminate the lives of sick people?
Yes. As I said earlier, it's the dishonesty involved as much as the act itself. No credible evidence has ever been produced that the death penalty reduces the murder rate, yet this deception is still propagated by the supporters of it. It's revenge, pure and simple.
The yardstick given to juries in convicting a defendant is "beyond a reasonable doubt" how that is possible in cases like this, I would dispute.
Although a hefty amount of literature and comment on the internet will describe rape and sexual assault as crimes with 'no grey areas', this absolutely isn't the case. If both the man and the woman are too intoxicated to give consent have they raped each other? If I am too intoxicated to give consent and I have sex with a woman who is not, has she raped me? Or is rape only something a man can do to another man or a woman? As NSIS has just said, can a jury convict purely on one person's word against another (I assume not really as nearly every case I've seen has had evidence backing up one side's account)? There are no 'grey areas' about whether or not rape is an abhorrent crime - it clearly is. But the process of trial and conviction is incredibly nuanced. LDL is also right in saying that the vast majority of rapes are committed by someone you already know and perhaps even have had sexual contact with before - you are more likely to be raped by a friend or partner than a random guy on the street.
Bigsmithy9 Could be some or most of those 20 women saw the bandwagon passing and decided to jump on. Look how many charges were thrown out in the Dave Lee Travis case.
