Ched Evans Gets A Contract

[Nads]

He has served the sentence given to him by a court of law, so I don't think that he should be punished further due to the media and social network witch hunt that is now taking place.

Spot on mate.

And that he was convicted on the judges opinion of a video of her and the fact she 'thinks her drinks were spiked' (no medical proof was found of this) means the whole case was a farce.

I would never say 'he didn't do it'.

What I will say is that he should never have been found guilty.

There's interesting stories about messages between the 'victim' and her friend via Facebook, where she says she 'went back with some footballers'.

Several hours later she went to the police, those messages WILL become public, always do in this day and age.

 

[Disco down under]

From what I've seen of this case I believe he has every chance of having it overturned to be honest. I would certainly question his morals, but to classify this drunken sex session as rape, even when the girl in question can't recall whether she consented or not, makes me feel that the rape conviction was harsh to say the least..

He was convicted as a result of his version of events mate not hers he wasn't drunk and remembered how it happened. How he described it constituted rape in the eyes of the jury.

 

[Rick O'Shea]

I get the feeling pepole are giving their views withoyt complete knowledge.

 

[Disco down under]

I get the feeling pepole are giving their views withoyt complete knowledge.

Well none of us were in the room mate so I think that's all anybody can do, it's what we all did about Pistorious, it's what we do all day long on this board, speculate.

 

[Rick O'Shea]

Speculation isn't enough to condemn someone though.

 

[BackO'TheNet]

I get the feeling pepole are giving their views withoyt complete knowledge.

Me included mate. I thought he was waiting to here from an appeal he'd submitted, but I've just read this :-

He is not appealing at all, it is merely a review into how the trial was conducted. Nothing to do with guilt or innocence that has already been decided by a jury who heard all the facts, including his version of events. The Court of Appeal having heard the facts declined to hear a full appeal as they believed the jury reached a fair decision based on the facts. He has not served his sentence, he is still doing it. he cannot leave the country as he is still a 'serving felon.'

 

[Disco down under]

Speculation isn't enough to condemn someone though.

Nah the fact the was tried and found guilty gives people what they need to condemn him.

 

[Nads]

Speculation isn't enough to condemn someone though.

Nail on head.

Condemn the lad and deny him a livelihood, it's not right.

That court case, based on the given reasons for conviction, is flawed in every way.

He may or may not have done it, bu was he not a footballer I don't think he'd have been convicted, that's my opinion on it, and I have read pages and pages on this.

It simply cannot be said without doubt that he was guilty, no way can anyone bar he and the victim (who actually says she has no recollection anyway, doesn't even remember sleeping with him, consensual or otherwise, if I've read correctly).

What IS fact is that she had coke and cannibas in her blood, not drugs usually used for 'spiking' drinks.

 

[Blunham Mackem]

Whatever the rights and wrongs of this, the fact that most of us don't know the full facts of the case there are one or two issues that really concern me about this;-

- he's under no obligation to show repentance whilst he's appealing his conviction, in fact it would be ridiculous for him to do so,
- as long as he's not encouraging them, he should not be held responsible for the fact that the poor lass is being trolled by vermin and forced to move house several times. It's up to the police now to deal with them. His legal advise would be for him to stay silent on this issue as well.
- if it's okay to own a football club when convicted of rape (Wasn't the ex-Blackpool owner convicted of this?), then why isn't it okay to play for one?
- there's a witch-hunt going on here. When did it become okay for people to add on further punishment to that handed down by a court?
- who gets to decide what professions should be available for convicted criminals, other than parliament? And what gives them the right to do so, some woman who starts a blog, some red-top newspaper?

For me this is now a witch-hunt, mob law, call it what you like, but whatever it is, it's wrong.

 

[Nads]

This is a very good read on the subject.

https://hat4uk.wordpress.com/2015/0...nt-youre-being-given-by-the-mainstream-media/

 

[Lostinvegas]

Whatever the rights and wrongs of this, the fact that most of us don't know the full facts of the case there are one or two issues that really concern me about this;-

- he's under no obligation to show repentance whilst he's appealing his conviction, in fact it would be ridiculous for him to do so,
- as long as he's not encouraging them, he should not be held responsible for the fact that the poor lass is being trolled by vermin and forced to move house several times. It's up to the police now to deal with them. His legal advise would be for him to stay silent on this issue as well.
- if it's okay to own a football club when convicted of rape (Wasn't the ex-Blackpool owner convicted of this?), then why isn't it okay to play for one?
- there's a witch-hunt going on here. When did it become okay for people to add on further punishment to that handed down by a court?
- who gets to decide what professions should be available for convicted criminals, other than parliament? And what gives them the right to do so, some woman who starts a blog, some red-top newspaper?

For me this is now a witch-hunt, mob law, call it what you like, but whatever it is, it's wrong.

I agree with the above, remember while he is not employed were paying for him with our taxes.

I don't know the ins and outs of the case but it he was found guilty, he was given a punishment which was judged fair for the crime by the same court that found him guilty so that is that.

 

[MrRAWhite]

Well none of us were in the room mate so I think that's all anybody can do, it's what we all did about Pistorious, it's what we do all day long on this board, speculate.

All about opinions, and if we all had the same one it would be a pretty dull world..

 

[Disco down under]

Nail on head.

Condemn the lad and deny him a livelihood, it's not right.

That court case, based on the given reasons for conviction, is flawed in every way.

He may or may not have done it, bu was he not a footballer I don't think he'd have been convicted, that's my opinion on it, and I have read pages and pages on this.

It simply cannot be said without doubt that he was guilty, no way can anyone bar he and the victim (who actually says she has no recollection anyway, doesn't even remember sleeping with him, consensual or otherwise, if I've read correctly).

What IS fact is that she had coke and cannibas in her blood, not drugs usually used for 'spiking' drinks.

No one's said anywhere he shouldn't be able to earn a living mate. That's a violation of his human rights. My stance isn't that it should be illegal for him to play football more that no football club should hire him.

That article you post is decent but it really only serves to disparage that lady journalist (she needed disparaging) and to further cloud what actually happened.

It all stinks to me, her drink wasn't spiked with weed or coke though. If he was proven innocent I'd be disgusted at how he's been treated but while he's been found guilty of it I don't think he should be put in the position of adoration that footballers have.

As a side note I'm not too sure what the bloke was getting at by bringing Rolf Harris into it. Didn't help his argument for me, is he saying if Rolf gets out we should be watching him on TV???

 

[Blunham Mackem]

No one's said anywhere he shouldn't be able to earn a living mate. That's a violation of his human rights. My stance isn't that it should be illegal for him to play football more that no football club should hire him.

That article you post is decent but it really only serves to disparage that lady journalist (she needed disparaging) and to further cloud what actually happened.

It all stinks to me, her drink wasn't spiked with weed or coke though. If he was proven innocent I'd be disgusted at how he's been treated but while he's been found guilty of it I don't think he should be put in the position of adoration that footballers have.

As a side note I'm not too sure what the bloke was getting at by bringing Rolf Harris into it. Didn't help his argument for me, is he saying if Rolf gets out we should be watching him on TV???

I find it totally bizarre that it should be illegal for him to play football again. That's not an ounce of logic in that at all.

 

[Nads]

No one's said anywhere he shouldn't be able to earn a living mate. That's a violation of his human rights. My stance isn't that it should be illegal for him to play football more that no football club should hire him.

That article you post is decent but it really only serves to disparage that lady journalist (she needed disparaging) and to further cloud what actually happened.

It all stinks to me, her drink wasn't spiked with weed or coke though. If he was proven innocent I'd be disgusted at how he's been treated but while he's been found guilty of it I don't think he should be put in the position of adoration that footballers have.

As a side note I'm not too sure what the bloke was getting at by bringing Rolf Harris into it. Didn't help his argument for me, is he saying if Rolf gets out we should be watching him on TV???

Ha, yeah Rolf is a little bit different....

I get what you are saying, and what people are saying theat the life of a footballer is one of privilige, but the big thing for me is that no way should he have been found guilty, I ain't saying he is innocent, I don't know that, but for sure I know that that court case did not prove beyond reasonable doubt he was guilty.

It's a mess alright, but I can't see how we can say 'no, he can't/shouldn't be signed'. What if it comes out down the line he didn't do it? And he's lost out on millions?

Where will he end up, how far down will he fall and he could be innocent.

The court case was a farce and has seriously clouded the waters.

Would I want us to sign him? No, obviously he's not a Prem player but no, I wouldn't want our name linked again to this kinda stuff after Titus.

For a club like Oldham though, this would be the best player they could sign, really top signing for them, for nowt.

I tell you what, his value as a player far outweighs the lost sponsors, and nailed on if he scores a few, someone will buy him thinking Oldham have taken the ****.

 

[Disco down under]

I find it totally bizarre that it should be illegal for him to play football again. That's not an ounce of logic in that at all.

Read what I said again. I completely agree with you.

 

[Blunham Mackem]

Read what I said again. I completely agree with you.

Oh yeh Was never good at speed-reading!

 

[Disco down under]

Ha, yeah Rolf is a little bit different....

I get what you are saying, and what people are saying theat the life of a footballer is one of privilige, but the big thing for me is that no way should he have been found guilty, I ain't saying he is innocent, I don't know that, but for sure I know that that court case did not prove beyond reasonable doubt he was guilty.

It's a mess alright, but I can't see how we can say 'no, he can't/shouldn't be signed'. What if it comes out down the line he didn't do it? And he's lost out on millions?

Where will he end up, how far down will he fall and he could be innocent.

The court case was a farce and has seriously clouded the waters.

Would I want us to sign him? No, obviously he's not a Prem player but no, I wouldn't want our name linked again to this kinda stuff after Titus.

For a club like Oldham though, this would be the best player they could sign, really top signing for them, for nowt.

I tell you what, his value as a player far outweighs the lost sponsors, and nailed on if he scores a few, someone will buy him thinking Oldham have taken the ****.

This is the big problem... Forget Ched... What if the lads on death row in America didn't do it?

The justice system is a ****ing mess and it's hard to know where the **** to stand.

I, however, stand by my position that as a football club owner I would not employ someone found guilty of rape and would personally hope others would be of the same mind as me.

 

[Nads]

This is the big problem... Forget Ched... What if the lads on death row in America didn't do it?

The justice system is a ****ing mess and it's hard to know where the **** to stand.

I, however, stand by my position that as a football club owner I would not employ someone found guilty of rape and would personally hope others would be of the same mind as me.

But, for Oldhams owner, Ched does well, and maybe a Championship club pays them a couple million.

It's one of those mate, life can never be lived between the lines, never.

He cost Sheff United £3million didn't he? And scored not short of 1 in 2 over 100 games.

A small club would have to consider that above all else.

 

[Disco down under]

But, for Oldhams owner, Ched does well, and maybe a Championship club pays them a couple million.

It's one of those mate, life can never be lived between the lines, never.

He cost Sheff United £3million didn't he? And scored not short of 1 in 2 over 100 games.

A small club would have to consider that above all else.

Don't get me wrong... I can understand it. Do I think for a second that if Lionel Messi spent a year inside for rape he wouldn't be playing again...

No I don't. The ****er who gave him a chance would be laughing and from the business sense it's shrewd.

Ethically I just couldn't live with it. I'm not saying I'm a better or worse person for it, just different to those that would.