Bristolatic Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 Christ on a bicycle, I simply can't believe that a Director has seen fit to resurrect this all over again. The Evans affair brought the club into the limelight for all the wrong reasons, it had (pretty much) gone away and now the fire is being stoked again. Is Owen stupid enough to try to sign Evans again? I sincerely hope not, but I wouldn't be surprised. The sooner he is out of the club we all love, the better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
24hoursfromtulsehill Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 The contents of this next segment may be upsetting to people and difficult to explain to children. Bejesus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
24hoursfromtulsehill Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 Due dilligence coming up again. It doesn't mean what you think it means, Barry. It's got a quite specific, technical meaning, which you also don't understand. I can't listen just now. Too raw. Might get drunk in the hope of responding more reasonably. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chaddy_Ender Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 The contents of this next segment may be upsetting to people and difficult to explain to children. Bejesus. Unless those children belong to Oldham fans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hands on Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 No doubt Barry does expect to sign him, however that will only now happen if the conviction is quashed, which many people already think would be a just result. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc-latics Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 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". It's irrelevant now if 'alleged' has no bearing on the outcome of a trial, because the trial found him guilty, and then he had an appeal rejected. That makes him guilty. The crime was alleged, and then two separate processes decided it happened. Barry's choice of words was poor. It's not his place to decide if Evans is/was guilty or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
opinions4u Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 No doubt Barry does expect to sign him, however that will only now happen if the conviction is quashed, which many people already think would be a just result. We're not even at the races if he's cleared. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
opinions4u Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 The line of questioning was very friendly in the radio clip (starts at 33 mins): http://www.the42.ie/ched-evans-oldham-barry-owen-1953382-Feb2015/?utm_source=shortlink Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilStarbucksSilkySkills Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 (edited) It's irrelevant now if 'alleged' has no bearing on the outcome of a trial, because the trial found him guilty, and then he had an appeal rejected. That makes him guilty. The crime was alleged, and then two separate processes decided it happened. Barry's choice of words was poor. It's not his place to decide if Evans is/was guilty or not. No That makes the verdict guilty. The law has decided he did it. That doesn't mean that he actually did. And even with the omniscience required to decide his actual guilt, the crime would still be "alleged". "Alleged" just means that it has been claimed. Whether the judicial system found him guilty or not, it has still been "alleged". Barry's use of the word is perfectly correct. Edited February 24, 2015 by PhilStarbucksSilkySkills Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
opinions4u Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 "If we'd sneaked him in the back door on a Monday morning ..." Possibly not the best phrase to use in the context of the court evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GlossopLatic Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 If Barry is ashamed to be British he is welcome to leave the country forever I'm sure we'd all chip in for a taxi to the airport. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jsslatic Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 Upon reflection, what is most concerning to me is that if Barry and Evans are continuing a relationship, and indeed this shower of an interview was held on the same day as they met for lunch, is that Barry and in turn the club are conceivably being used as a mouthpiece for the Justice for Ched campaign. Evans is now on his best post 'apology' behaviour and it's as if we're doing the dirty work. It's completely unacceptable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc-latics Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 No That makes the verdict guilty. The law has decided he did it. That doesn't mean that he actually did. And even with the omniscience required to decide his actual guilt, the crime would still be "alleged". "Alleged" just means that it has been claimed. Whether the judicial system found him guilty or not, it has still been "alleged". Barry's use of the word is perfectly correct. Disagree. Technically, of course it will always be an allegation, but it was tried and he was found guilty. If he wins his appeal it'll be fair to call it an allegation again. We'll never know if he did it or not, but he's been found guilty twice. For Barry to describe it as alleged, it implies he thinks Evans isn't guilty, that's why it's a poor choice of words for a former police officer and club director to use. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilStarbucksSilkySkills Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 Disagree. Technically, of course it will always be an allegation, but it was tried and he was found guilty. If he wins his appeal it'll be fair to call it an allegation again. We'll never know if he did it or not, but he's been found guilty twice. For Barry to describe it as alleged, it implies he thinks Evans isn't guilty, that's why it's a poor choice of words for a former police officer and club director to use. No. It just implies that Barry isn't happy to use the court's verdict to describe the alleged crime. And either way, he is entitled to think that Evans is not guilty. He's not alone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deyres42 Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 Can society operate on the basis of every crime only being described as alleged? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 He just couldn't leave it alone could he.... sigh.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave_Og Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 Come on Corney. Sack him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Latics_Fanatic Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 I thought we'd heard the end of this... :censored:ing bellend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
opinions4u Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 In Barry's defence, I get his points about Evans having the right to seek work, an employer having the right to offer him work (or not to offer him work) and mob mentality. I can even accept that even though sometimes the words Barry uses aren't always the best they're not usually intended to offend. I disagree with him profoundly around Oldham Athletic getting involved and seemingly remaining involved. I think that stirring up the waters again after it's gone away is foolish to the extreme. The way he uses the Athletico's 70,000 banner to support his case is piss poor and just because a not insignificant minority of fans supported the signing doesn't mean it could ever be the right thing to do. Becoming Evans' stooge ahead of the next hearing? Steer well clear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 (edited) How is this in the interest of Oldham Athletic FC to be talking about this whole affair again? Edited February 24, 2015 by oafc0000 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
palmer1 Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 How pissed off will Bazza be if he wins his appeal and signs for Sheff Utd? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChaddySmoker Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 Come on Corney. Sack him. I'll second that! Just because someone is cheap doesnt mean that they cannot be dangerous! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave_Og Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 How is this in the interest of Oldham Athletic FC to be talking about this whole affair again? and that, Mr Owen, is the question you need to ask yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peanuts Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 Get out of OUR club Owen now! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 (edited) I can't believe how little is understood by some people about the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act. Convictions that are unspent If asked by an employer, you have to disclose them, and they can legally refuse you or discriminate against you. They will be disclosed on all types of criminal record disclosure (basic, standard and enhanced). If asked, you will have to disclose the when applying for products and services, such as insurance, a mortgage or renting a house. You could be prosecuted if you fail to disclose them when asked. So the club had the LEGAL right to refuse the convicted rapist the right to work. After that it become a moral issue for everybody if the club decided to go against that and employee him. Customers and Sponsors are always going to take a view point. You shouldn't be in business if you can't accept or understand that. It is very BRITISH and democratic for your customers and backers to have and express their feelings. The whole interview is rubbish point after rubbish point to me. We should never have considered employing him. Many rapists struggle to go back to their previous line of work. He was not a special case. Edited February 24, 2015 by oafc0000 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts