PhilStarbucksSilkySkills

He can have lunch with whoever he wants. How could he??? Damn his insensitivity He is saying that he deplores the alleged crime. So yes. There's a flaw in your logic if you are suggesting that the 3000+ people would not share similar sentiments to the 10. It is "alleged" because it has been alleged by people. "Alleged" doesn't mean "innocent". "Alleged" doesn't mean "not guilty" even. "Alleged" has no bearing on the outcome of a trail. It is simply what people will tend to say to cover there arses pre judicial verdict or if they don't accept the verdict. But every crime that anyone has ever been accused of can correctly be referred to as "alleged".

How was it not in your control? How was it not your fault? Are you a slave or something?? Go f*** yourself you putrid little skid mark of a human being.

I doubt it's still on. I think he's due to stand trial for molesting some Chelsea defenders.

Well it's funny that you remember any comments I made re:Ched Evans because I don't recall you trying to argue against me or commenting at all.

Nicely misrepresented there. Amongst other things (according to club) Montano has been caught on camera admitting to fraud, in betrayal of the trust given to him by his teammates, the staff and the supporters of the club. Ched Evans has been questionably found guilty in the opinion of the court of having sex with a woman after she had crossed the "was she too drunk to consent or not" threshold. He has also served time for his alleged crime. Who would I want at my club? Certainly not Montano.

About the double standards? No. He doesn't. He was supposedly sacked for a multitude offences. One of which was being caught on camera admitting to fraud and to screwing us over.

It happens everyttime I navigate on a thread page for me. Unless I quickly press the X button in firefox.

Firefox for me. Not tried the others.

You also appear to to have hidden a post that confirmed that I'm not the only one being redirected to "lemode-mgz.com" on this forum. Owtb is being spammed. Do you know what is going on?

Alright...I stand corrected. Looks like it was you said that 3 minutes before my question. I apologise. That's the problem with a thread that updates 10 times before I can click "post", and to make matters worse I keep being redirected to some annoying health advert at the moment. So what does "Not off with the troll" mean?

I'm waiting for it to be answered once. Do you have a problem with pluralising or something?

So why are you saying he's been found guilty twice?

Complete codswallop and balderdash! For all the reasons already stated on this thread

Then I see no problem. It isn't everyone's idea of fun, but each to their own.

Do you mean predetory in the merely searching for easy sex kind of way, or do you mean something more sinister?

Totally agree. Although personally whilst I'm not defending him, I'm not particularly bothered about him being in the room either. Naive and ill advised - sure. Disrespectful to his girlfriend - certainly. But ultimately the only person he is hurting in any way via his mere presence in the room is his girlfriend, and that's a private matter.

A bit of northern dialect creeping in there ;)

Name me one person who has suggested that the justice system is flawed whilst the appeal system is infallible, and quote them on it please.

Disappointed that the club have caved in like this. They clearly wanted Evans and so should have stuck to their guns. It suggests that they have received a reaction that they weren't expecting. I have no idea why and it wouldn't have taken a soothsayer to predict all this madness. But the baying mob have their way. Congratulations.

Hopefully we can replace the sponsors who have jumped ship, with ones that aren't so cowardly or morally dubious/inflexible/binary. Sorry, but this whole episode is pissing me off royally now, both the reactions of some on this board and in the media over the last few days are sickening to me. I think I'll take the rest of the day off to calm down. Welcome to the club Ched Evans. Here's hoping you are worth all the fuss.

I would have no opinion or belief about any court decision unless I have looked into it myself. No matter what that decision is. In the Ched Evans case, I have seen nothing substantial enough to indicate guilt. If a court rules to overturn the verdict then both myself and the court would be in alignment in that regard.

Charming! I'm not entitled to an opinion then? And who said I was ignoring the decisions made by the Court of Law? I'm just don't accept them blindly. How is such a stance so radical to you?

Well, you either have different standards to me of judging a rape case, or you have seen something that I haven't. Nothing I have read leads me to be confident enough that a rape has occured.

Well let's save us arguing semantics about the word "faith". It has everything to do with the fact that I won't accept someone else's judgement of another human being blindly. You (and a scarily high number of people) appear to be comfortable accepting a jury's verdict with full confidence, to the point where vitriol towards the judged is deemed excusable.

Until this thread dies down. So in about 3 years from now.