jimsleftfoot

As I understand it, the whole prosecution case was based upon the premise that the lady was too drunk to give consent at the time the rape occurred. It matters not whether she agreed to go back to the hotel room. Her evidence was that she couldn't remember having sex with either footballer, because she was too drunk. What is puzling in this case is how the jury concluded (if they did) that she wasn't too drunk to give consent in respect of the first footballer but was too drunk in respect of the second, albeit it is not clear what findings the jury made as to the two footballers own states of mind. NB and for the avoidance of doubt - this is only my opinion and everyone is entitled to theirs!

Singe's above link explains.

I think there is a difference between believing Evans should be allowed to play, and wanting him to play for my club.

 

I'm split on the first issue, strongly against on the second.

 

As I think O4U said earlier in the thread, it may make me a NIMBY...I'm fine with that on this occasion.

This 100%

Davebuckley06 makes a good point when he states "Your (and the rest of the anti evans brigades) stance that the majority were against him signing for us is bewildering also. What evidence do you have to suggest that your with the majority? A vote on owtb's? The same vote that 200 or so people voted in out of well over 2000 members? That's not a majority. The anti evans brigade were louder, more forceful and used majorly under hand tactics . . . This does not make them a majority."

 

I, like many others, canvassed the views of my colleagues on this issue. The vast majority believed Evans should be allowed to play. Then again - we are all solicitors!

 

Maybe Dave has got a point, but equally unless he's done the numbers, there's no particular way Dave can prove that he is in the majority. If the 200 people on here polled representative of the fan base, probably not, but neither is a straw poll amongst collegues.

After looking further discrimination in the work place can is only against the law if you are discriminated against for any of the protected characteristics. Convictions isn't (as yet) a protected characteristic.

 

Doesn't mean discrimination of any sort for any reason is morally acceptable though

 

Nb not many people come on here and shoot down there own arguement

Employers are not allowed to turn a person down for a job if they have a 'spent' conviction. To add, the conviction only becomes spent after a further rahabilitation period after the end of the actual sentence. For custodial sentences of 6-30 months the rehab period is 4 years.

Therefore he can be turned down.

Edit - Ched was jailed for 5 years which means his conviction can never actually be 'spent' (if i've read it right).

https://www.gov.uk/exoffenders-and-employment

But legally they will only be able to post factual information on the case, so it's not as if they're posting pages of lies and deceiving us all.

Its being investigated for contempt of court.

We would get greater traction if we set up our own Justgiving page. I was thinking of this yesterday but didn't have time.

I've just had a look but the site seems to have a problem (same issue Crusoe?)

According to one report (Cooper SSN), part of the reason he is not apologising, is that the PFA hae advised it will perjure his Criminal cases Review.

I accept if he sees himself ans innocent he is not going to apologise. But as a minimum I want to see that he condemns, literally, victim hounding and urges it to stop

It's not other people though. His own website is the flagship that the abuse is sailing behind.

That's an interesting point. In all of this (and despite prominent articles at the top of their sites) a Ched Evans story is not in the top 10 most read articles on the Guardian or Telegraph websites or the top 5 most read on the Mirror or Times websites... I can't find other site's lists.

 

So really it's not quite as an attention-grabbing story as perhaps the press would like to think, at least not this morning?

That could be because most of the articles published are opinion pieces rather than stories. The Mirror has one table for stories and a seperate table for opinions, guess what appears at the top of the opinions?

 

It's because I think this is different. You are not "fighting for your right". It's a moral issue.

An inividuals moral issue like this shouldn't need to have exposure. Your morals should say what you do.

 

What we do is our business.

Our morals help to inform our rights and vice versa, I can't see how you can seperate the two.

I think many people will see this as fighting for womens rights hence why so many have signed the petitions.

It's bandwagon outrage. She wants to feel good about herself by being more outraged than anyone else. This helps nothing except the broadcast news channels. The woman should turn around and go home and get on with her life rather than trying to get on telly for her 15 minutes of fame.

The thing with protest is that it loses its effect if you do it at home with no one watching.

If Emily Davison chucked herself under a horse in a field with no one there, it would have been quite pointless.

If you are going to rip up your tickets but not tell anyone, what would be the point exactly?

This is a big worry for me. I won't see him play for us, I would certainly hope to come back afterwards, but who knows how any of us will feel by the time this :censored: is through? Some certainly won't return including families and our next generation.

The club is certainly not looking forward and it could help to push a generation of youngsters into the arms of the Manchester clubs.

Regardless of whether you believe Ched should be given a second chance, whether you believe his is guilty - innocent, a victim or whatever:

Does anyone honestly believe it is now in the best interests Oldham Athletic to take him on?

The media attention.

The infighting between supporters

How can this now be worth it?

I'd love someone to explain to me how it is..

Despite what others are saying, I think there is the rather large chance that we could see protests by Womens Group's etc. at our games if we sign him.

He hasn't been accused or tried for offences against a minor so why should he be banned from such activities. And frankly, to pin him as some predatory paedophile is way out of order, regardless of your stance on the original offence.

This isn't my opinion mate, it's what the register allows for and may not be applied to him (as I had said).

Perhaps you should actually read what people say before commenting!!!

Dear me the Greater Manchester police commissioner Tony Lloyd says shouldn't sign him...... does this chap not think he needs to get his own house in order and beyond criticism. Wasn't even sure the bloke existed. Interesting comment from a police related person ....rehab of offenders?

Agreed, I don't think we should sign him but it seems strange that we have all these politicians giving their opinions. In which case they should be legislating or putting pressure on the FA and PFA to provide rules.

What are the implications of being on the sex offenders register playing for a football club?

A disqualification from working with Children is perhaps the main one (may not be an automatic condition). Given that we have a youth team and children attending matches, measures would have to be put into place to monitor him and ensure compliance.

Do I think the conviction was safe? No.

Does this matter? No.

Has Ched served his sentence? Yes.

Do I think this matters? Yes.

Was he released early? Yes.

Should he be allowed to work again? Yes.

Should OAFC offer him a job? This is of course the difficult one. Given that I think he shouldn't be hounded out of work in the way he has been I suppose the answer is Yes.

Should OAFC have handled this better? Most certainly. Firstly the Board should have considered all the angles and supported the idea 100%. Secondly the Board should have made sure LJ supported the decision 100%. Thirdly they should have spoken to the club sponsors. Then and only then if everyone was on board, they should have signed him and made the announcement.

What should they do now? Sign him! To give in to the mainly ill informed over reactions that I have read on this thread would be wrong. There are arguments for and arguments against which I respect but mainly there is the sort of mass hysteria which these instant forms of communication promulgate.

He hasn't served his sentence, he's out on licence and could potentially be returned to prison if he break any of the conditions. He's also listed on the sex offenders register.

All i'm saying is imagine it was you and you knew she had consented, you wouldn't show remorse. That's why he hasn't shown any remorse as he believes he is innocent. I agree he is guilty in the eyes of the law. Anyway all that's irrelevant as he is out of jail and free to seek employment.

The issue is that Ched has no way of knowing himself because he did not give himself the opportunity to find out. Walking into a hotel room and asking for sex from a girl you have never met is by normal standards rather predatory. The girl may have said 'yes' but what if she felt intimidated to do so by Ched? On a very basic level, Ched is guilty of not doing enough to protect himself and had left himself open to arrest and conviction, which he ultimately was.

And had you quoted the rest of m my post - witnessing a crime doesn't make you an accomplice to it... Many people witness bank robberies yet don't intervene -far too many people on here comment without actually understanding the law

Calm down mate. I wasn't quoting you I was repeating my initial point and I will again that the prosecution did not establish whether he was a witness or accessory as the prosecution chose not to present that case to the jury. This was the view of the judge that reviewed whether Ched had a right to appeal I.e. He was answering the same question that Playitlivo had asked.

I gather the prosecution :censored:ed that up by only charging McDonald in relation to his having sex with her and neglecting to go after him for his part in her rape by Evans - this was highlighted in the Court of Appeal judgment IIRC.

Yes that is what I gathered.

Will some one please finally understand that to witness a crime and not intervene is not an offence

But to be an accessory to a crime is. That point was never established because the case was never made by the prosecution for whatever reason.

Even still McDonald should be implicated then as an accessory to rape as he was in the same room when Ched initiated intercourse and did nothing to stop it?

Yes perhaps so, the prosecution didn't present this case and so he was never prosecuted as an accessory. Perhaps they should have but perhaps they didn't want to give a lesser option.

What I don't get about the case is why Clayton McDonald was found not guilty, despite the fact they both nailed her. How is Clayton McDonald not a rapist but Ched Evans is?

Clayton spent time with the girl beforehand and it could have been reasonable for him to think that consent was given. Ched walked in and straightaway wanted sex. The prosecution did not make a case for either of them being an accessory to the other. It was a case of trying them both seperatley for rape. At the hearing as to whether Ched could appeal, the Judge felt the jury's decision was reasonable.

Is Salem in Oldham?

Oh it is.

Mob mentality at its most dangerous.

Read the Spectator link . The Mail link with video statement and look into the actual case.

Too many DOUBTS in my mind.

Being convicted does NOT mean it's the right decision, it's just some people's opinion & unfortunately jury's reflect society, which as can be witnessed on here mob mentality prevails.

Luckily it's not the 17th Century or I suspect Ched Evans would have already been lynched, which considering the case is being reviewed is something to reflect upon.

Yet he was not given leave to appeal.

Never read so much twaddle in my life as a lot on here. Morals and role models - don't make me laugh - footballers ceased to be that long ago - vast majority are foul mouthed, greedy, self-seeking so and so's - so couldn't give a damn if Evans signs or not - it'll all die down within a week or so when the media and social networking etc have some other 'non-event' to hype up.

Since when are role models only good? Footballers are role models because they earn lots of money playing football and have models for girlfriends and therefore kids look up to them.

Apple Store are doing a 0% finance deal at the moment until Jan 15th and I think the Iphone is covered. Over two years thats £22.45 a month for Iphone 6. Just need to add on whatever deal you can get from O2 on a phoneless plan, should be well under £58.

Edit: 0% only available on up to 12 months.