Off Topic Bill Nicholson Arms

[Spurm]

With regards to Spurs injuries...
they do seem to take a while to get over them. Either that or the extent of them is being concealed.
Either way, both are better than what it used to be in the good old days where we regularly had half our squad out injured at a time

 

[humanbeingincroydon]

Right, off to Japan for the next week or so. Mainly to ask if anyone over there has a clue what's going on in that Me!Me!Me! video

...please note that it isn't a good idea to Google that video if you happen to be at work.

 

[PleaseNotPoll]

Mundo Deportivo, the Spanish daily sports paper, has claimed that it has the 59-man shortlist for this year's Ballon d'Or.
No idea why they've used that number, but there are some fairly odd inclusions, as well as a number of Spurs connected ones.

All of the usual suspects are on it, including 7 players from each of the two big Spanish clubs, who we all know are going to win it.
We have two players on it, with Kane's goals forcing him into contention and Son's performances in Germany and for Korea making the cut.
We also have a number of ex-players on there, some of whom are a bit of a surprise.
Bale and Modric aren't a shock to anyone, but Giovani Dos Santos and Massimo Luongo are a little unexpected.
Probably not as much as Ospina making it on, though!

 

[NSIS]

The Ched Evans case is referred to the court of appeal after new evidence comes to light.

Wonder how all the witchunters will feel if it turns out he's innocent after all?...

 

[vimhawk]

The Ched Evans case is referred to the court of appeal after new evidence comes to light.

Wonder how all the witchunters will feel if it turns out he's innocent after all?...

There are certain crimes that it is helpful if you are guilty because you are going to be presumed guilty anyway. I don't know the facts of this case, but I'm sure that most of the people who assumed his guilt don't know the facts either.

 

[NSIS]

There are certain crimes that it is helpful if you are guilty because you are going to be presumed guilty anyway. I don't know the facts of this case, but I'm sure that most of the people who assumed his guilt don't know the facts either.

He was found guilty and went to prison. When he was released he tried to resume his profession as a footballer - as most people who have a trade or profession would do, once released.

I'm sure you know the rest but he was basically hounded out of football by a concerted witchunt.

 

[The Huddlefro]

What has always made me wonder about the case is that his friend (who I believe was having it off with the woman in question 10 minutes or so before Ched Evans did, in the same room) apparently was acting in a consensual situation, whereas Evans wasn't. Given that the argument for conviction appears to have been that the woman in question was too intoxicated to give legally binding consent, I have always wondered why Evans's friend was never convicted as well, considering she must have been in a fairly similar state during her interaction with each man.

Whether this new evidence causes his conviction to be overturned or not, the attitude towards women of all the men involved in the case is utterly deplorable. I would never want any kids I ever have to grow up thinking such people were role models. The repeated leaking of the woman's identity (although allegedly that had nothing to do with Evans and was done against his wishes by his supporters) was also despicable.

I know this is an extremely touchy subject by the way, so if I'm getting the facts of the case wrong to the point where it utterly rubbishes any of the above, let me know and I will change my tone accordingly. I guess, ultimately we may never know the full facts of the situation. But I think the case, as I understand it, raises important questions about the nature of rape and sexual assault laws in the UK (particularly when it comes to the giving of informed or uninformed consent) and that those questions are infinitely difficult to answer in relation to what is such an emotionally charged and serious crime.

 

[NSIS]

What has always made me wonder about the case is that his friend (who I believe was having it off with the woman in question 10 minutes or so before Ched Evans did, in the same room) apparently was acting in a consensual situation, whereas Evans wasn't. Given that the argument for conviction appears to have been that the woman in question was too intoxicated to give legally binding consent, I have always wondered why Evans's friend was never convicted as well, considering she must have been in a fairly similar state during her interaction with each man.

Whether this new evidence causes his conviction to be overturned or not, the attitude towards women of all the men involved in the case is utterly deplorable. I would never want any kids I ever have to grow up thinking such people were role models. The repeated leaking of the woman's identity (although allegedly that had nothing to do with Evans and was done against his wishes by his supporters) was also despicable.

I know this is an extremely touchy subject by the way, so if I'm getting the facts of the case wrong to the point where it utterly rubbishes any of the above, let me know and I will change my tone accordingly. I guess, ultimately we may never know the full facts of the situation. But I think the case, as I understand it, raises important questions about the nature of rape and sexual assault laws in the UK (particularly when it comes to the giving of informed or uninformed consent) and that those questions are infinitely difficult to answer in relation to what is such an emotionally charged and serious crime.

The case is, of course, one thing and he was found guilty. He went to prison, and was then released.

My bone of contention is to do with his subsequent treatment at the hands of the media, the FA, and various corporate bodies who, too scared to go against the witchunters, made sure that he couldn't work again in his profession. Why not? Guilty or not, he's been to prison and paid for a crime he may, or may not have committed. Why should he be hounded out of trying to earn a decent living too?

 

[littleDinosaurLuke]

5p for a bloody carrier bag

 

[The Huddlefro]

I have mixed feelings on him going back to football. Its probably a reasonably safe option to be fair. Assuming he is going to be considered dangerous (i.e. not allowed to work in situations where he will be in unsupervised contact with women and children) as a result of his conviction then football is fairly low risk in that regard, and I would presume that any club that took him on would have it written into his contract that he would abide by certain restrictions on his social life, drinking habits, and that he would have to attend various consent workshops or the like in order to educate him on why what he did was wrong. He's unlikely to be a role model when playing for (with the greatest respect) Oldham or the like - I found it mystifying that commentators were complaining about that when I doubt any of them could have named a single Oldham player without looking them up, and the high profile nature of the case means that his crimes, as we have to presume him guilty now unless proven otherwise, were never going to be forgotten no matter his achievements in football.

On the other hand it would be fairly galling to see him able to return to a high paid and (relatively, even at a lower their club) glamorous profession given the nature of his crimes. Perhaps the smart thing to would have been to announce he would be donating the majority of his salary to a rape crisis charity or similar if he got another job as a footballer. We will never know. If he had managed to find a less high profile and perhaps less well paid job, that was also placing him in a low risk position, he'd probably be doing it and few people would be complaining.

There was a groundswell of support for him that I think was down to people not understanding or feeling comfortable with his conviction. Certain sections of the media jumped on this and portrayed it as football fans supporting a rapist, whereas I think people were actually supporting him because they believed him innocent, were uncomfortable with the circumstances surrounding his conviction, and, for example, were unsure why MacDonald(sp?), his friend, was not also convicted when the facts of the case as we the public have seen them in my opinion suggest that either both of them should have been locked up or neither. This support ironically played into the hands of those who wanted him away from football.

 

[paultheplug]

If the court of appeal overturn his conviction it will not hide the fact that what he did was bad. However, two former England captains and a well known Welsh player have also done bad things and have not been hounded out of the game by the media, so if he is not guilty he should be allowed to return to football and there should be no campaign to stop him

 

[redwhiteandermblue]

What has always made me wonder about the case is that his friend (who I believe was having it off with the woman in question 10 minutes or so before Ched Evans did, in the same room) apparently was acting in a consensual situation, whereas Evans wasn't. Given that the argument for conviction appears to have been that the woman in question was too intoxicated to give legally binding consent, I have always wondered why Evans's friend was never convicted as well, considering she must have been in a fairly similar state during her interaction with each man.

Whether this new evidence causes his conviction to be overturned or not, the attitude towards women of all the men involved in the case is utterly deplorable. I would never want any kids I ever have to grow up thinking such people were role models. The repeated leaking of the woman's identity (although allegedly that had nothing to do with Evans and was done against his wishes by his supporters) was also despicable.

I know this is an extremely touchy subject by the way, so if I'm getting the facts of the case wrong to the point where it utterly rubbishes any of the above, let me know and I will change my tone accordingly. I guess, ultimately we may never know the full facts of the situation. But I think the case, as I understand it, raises important questions about the nature of rape and sexual assault laws in the UK (particularly when it comes to the giving of informed or uninformed consent) and that those questions are infinitely difficult to answer in relation to what is such an emotionally charged and serious crime.

I have strong and mixed feelings on the subject:

Anti-Evans: I agree that anyone in his right mind who thinks it is in any way acceptable to become involved with a woman who is drunk with his buddy is a !*#$)* and I’m tempted to say deserves every bad thing that happens to him.

Anti-legal system. I’ve seen exactly one great courtroom drama in my life. It was an American series, can’t remember which one. Anyway, there was a 99% chance the dude killed his wife. The jury convicted him not because of the evidence, but because he was cheating on his wife. After they read the verdict, you realized you were never going to actually know whether the dude was guilty or not. That’s the truth. We don’t actually know, and we never will. Not guilty and guilty are decisions rendered by a bunch of people who usually not only don’t know enough to deliver a fair verdict, but do so out of emotion rather than reason. It’s a tribal ritual, presided over by witch doctors, and in the case of a conviction a kind of modern human sacrifice.

Somebody once developed money problems, and had a big insurance policy on his wife, who caught him cheating. Then he came home to find his wife had been murdered in a home invasion. He’s in jail now. Everyone is still sure he’s guilty. People lack a decent respect for their own ignorance. The Innocence Project in the US does good work ferreting out some of these cases via DNA evidence. The number of false convictions turns out to be staggering, as is the complacency with which people greet them.

 

[PowerSpurs]

The case is, of course, one thing and he was found guilty. He went to prison, and was then released.

My bone of contention is to do with his subsequent treatment at the hands of the media, the FA, and various corporate bodies who, too scared to go against the witchunters, made sure that he couldn't work again in his profession. Why not? Guilty or not, he's been to prison and paid for a crime he may, or may not have committed. Why should he be hounded out of trying to earn a decent living too?

Do you think many highly paid workers in any job get their job back after being in prison for rape? Rehabilitation usually involves starting at the bottom after an offence like that. And the way he has gone about protesting his innocence with a highly publicised web-site on which you can identify his victim would be enough to put any sane employer off employing him. Even not allowing for the fact that he thinks it is acceptable behaviour to invite your mate round to have sex with a random drunk woman you've picked up.

 

[NSIS]

Do you think many highly paid workers in any job get their job back after being in prison for rape? Rehabilitation usually involves starting at the bottom after an offence like that. And the way he has gone about protesting his innocence with a highly publicised web-site on which you can identify his victim would be enough to put any sane employer off employing him. Even not allowing for the fact that he thinks it is acceptable behaviour to invite your mate round to have sex with a random drunk woman you've picked up.

Why has pay got anything to do with it? If a man has paid for a crime and an employer is willing to offer him a position, why should he be hounded out of that by a bunch of sanctimonious witchunters?

 

[PowerSpurs]

Why has pay got anything to do with it? If a man has paid for a crime and an employer is willing to offer him a position, why should he be hounded out of that by a bunch of sanctimonious witchunters?

That is fine - I'm just saying only a football club would likely to take that position. Most employees wouldn't touch someone like him with a bargepole

 

[humanbeingincroydon]

The Ched Evans case is referred to the court of appeal after new evidence comes to light.

Wonder how all the witchunters will feel if it turns out he's innocent after all?...

For me, what counted against Evans was his camp's attempt to bullshit the public: they kept stating that he had served his sentence, yet he hadn't - he had served half of his sentence and was released on license, but putting one toe wrong would have seen him sent back to prison to serve the remainder of his sentence. It's not like he did much to endear himself to the public in the immediate aftermath, either.

 

[NSIS]

That is fine - I'm just saying only a football club would likely to take that position. Most employees wouldn't touch someone like him with a bargepole

So, the idea is that a silly young man, having consumed too much alcohol ( unheard of in young men!), commits an offense against a young lady who is equally inebriated, and is then asked to pay for this mistake for the rest of his life?

If that's the case, no wonder the crime rate is so persistently high!..

 

[NSIS]

For me, what counted against Evans was his camp's attempt to bullshit the public: they kept stating that he had served his sentence, yet he hadn't - he had served half of his sentence and was released on license, but putting one toe wrong would have seen him sent back to prison to serve the remainder of his sentence. It's not like he did much to endear himself to the public, either.

If the guy genuinely feels that he was innocent of the offense with which he was found guilty - and remember it has now been referred to the court of appeal, then why should he just meekly put his hands up and play at showing contrition?

If he was released on license or paroled, What's wrong with that? It's not exactly a rare occurrence.

I accept that his behaviour was stupid, at best, but for how long is he supposed to keep paying for it?

 

[littleDinosaurLuke]

Oldham shouldn't have had to bow to mob pressure.

Evans was lawfully entitled to return to work. Whatever view you might take about Evans' behaviour, it's not right that he should be denied his legal right to seek work or a club should be denied the right to employ a player of their choosing. Don't the mob believe in the rule of law? It's strange because in accepting Evans' guilt, they must have accepted the legitimacy of the process which led to the finding of guilt. So why don't they accept the principles of rehabilitation? Despite still being on licence, Evans was free to work. Employment is crucial part of rehabilitating offenders.

The mob's morals were a little doubtful too. They claimed to be morally outraged by Evans' conduct, but thought nothing of making threats towards the club, its directors and manager and Evans' family. So threatening 3rd parties who are not culpable in any way is fine, is it? Don't they see the contradiction in using threats of violence to supposedly express their disapproval of an alleged crime of violence?

The truth is that the mob neither have morals nor respect for the rule of law. They just react. And they shouldn't have been allowed to prevail.

 

[PleaseNotPoll]

It'll be interesting to see what counts as new evidence in this case, as I can only think that somebody's said something online or via text.
I'm not sure what else might get Evans off, given the original verdict, which I personally found a bit weird, considering that the other bloke got off.