Football
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
These 574 comments are related to the topic:
Ridiculous Statement from Ministry of Justice on Ched Evans
Ridiculous Statement from Ministry of Justice on Ched Evans
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 574
|
By:
Juries actually have traditionally been there to bring in some common sense in situations where the law might be a bit muddy. They found MacDonald not guilty for the very reason that he had met and spoken with the woman who agreed to go back to an hotel room with him. The jury don't have to give their reasoning but I suspect they thought that was implied consent. Evans had never met the woman before and bluffed his way into the hotel room where he found a strange woman who was by common consent,drunk. The jury presumably felt it would be stretching things too far to believe he had earlier implied consent.
|
|
By:
oldhamm THE CLUB THAT SIGNED A MURDERER HAVE AT LAST COME TO THEIR SENSES AND SAID THE DEAL TO SIGN THE RAPIST IS OFF |
|
By:
directors & sponsors got death threats, read a rumour on twitter that a director was sent his daughter's work address and told that she'd be raped.
If ANY of that is true and I'd say at least some of it is then this is why I am opposed to him not being allowed to work. There should be a written rule that sets it out clearly to avoid all of this mob justice nonsense. |
|
By:
Its hopeless, modern men are fools
If a women says no, she means no, so if a man has sex that is rape.... so if a women says yes, she must mean yes, so it is not rape The ruling here is incapacity, the women can make no decision for herself This must must apply to both McDonald and Evans So one cannot start saying things like They found MacDonald not guilty for the very reason that he had met and spoken with the woman who agreed to go back to an hotel room with him. because that implies she did have capacity!!! so there is no rape here! Modern men's brains are only in their trousers We are ruled by women we really are, very sad  |
|
By:
rumours are non fact Lurka
yes mob rule applies here, but it is not for Evans it is against them The man is innocent |
|
By:
against him
|
|
By:
It is the Dreyfus case all over again, it really is
Dreyfus was found guilty because he was a Jew Evans has been found guilty he is a man |
|
By:
I did say 'if' Ebul. But i understand that the likes of Jess Ennis got similar threats so that's why i'd suspect some of it at least is true
|
|
By:
|
|
By:
there's a mob on both sides Ebul, the victim got a load of abuse from Evans side. That's what happens when you don't regulate
|
|
By:
not saying he should be allowed, merit on both sides of that argument, just that if he is to be there needs to be a rule preventing it
|
|
By:
he,s the stupidity of it all
she claimed she was raped by both in the eyes of the law evans has done his time and been on licence doesnt prevent him from continuing his career but would we have this uproar if mcdonald wanted a transfer or wanted to sign for a club also loads on here say he,s been found guilty by a jury of his peers,but if those same peers find him innocent on appeal are all these women and the media totty going to say sorry ched we were wrong come round for dinner, off course not and they probably wouldnt have mcdonald round either,except charlie of course who,d have evans castrated but have tyson round for a shag |
|
By:
The Special One
directors & sponsors got death threats, read a rumour on twitter that a director was sent his daughter's work address and told that she'd be raped.If ANY of that is true and I'd say at least some of it is then this is why I am opposed to him not being allowed to work. There should be a written rule that sets it out clearly to avoid all of this mob justice nonsense. WELL DONE TO WHOEVER MADE THAT THREAT, I WOULD LOVE TO BUY THEM A DRINK ANYTIME You might have to pay their rent as well if they carried out the threat as people like you would deny them the opportunity to work. Could you be anymore confused? |
|
By:
.
|
|
By:
ebulGery • January 8, 2015 12:42 PM GMT
It is the Dreyfus case all over again  Are you mates with Charlton2005? |
|
By:
who gives a t055 about cheddar evans - I had never heard of him before the rape
|
|
By:
No matter what you say about Ebul he won't be moved.
Keep up the good work Ebul and lets take this country back from the Sweetie Wives and the Keyboard Warriors. |
|
By:
I've got the feeling that ebul was in the 'special' class when he was a lad
|
|
By:
Akabula - I really don't care about you or what you think, but the notion that this is remotely similar to the Dreyfus case is really not one you'd want to be associating yourself with. It's laughable.
|
|
By:
Well you cared enough to address me Pandorica.
One thing though, where do I refer to the Dreyfus case? It's laughable you say, want to know what is laughable? People mixing up posters. |
|
By:
Ummm... you said "Keep up the good work Ebul" - he wrote that about Dreyfus.
I did say 'associate with' as opposed to write it yourself. Never mind. Difficult concept. |
|
By:
It looks like Oldham underestimated the sponsors, as I said yesterday an item on the BBC quoted Oldham as saying "if sponsors leave we will get others in", they got that completely wrong. Also Ched complained of mob rule but was strangely silent as was his team when his supporters were spouting their vemon towards the victim and anyone who didn't agree with them. Bloody convenient that. Of course those unhinged individuals who did threaten all sorts of nasty things in the name of keeping Ched out of Oldham should be condemned, that is totally unacceptable.
|
|
By:
Pandorica
Ummm... you said "Keep up the good work Ebul" - he wrote that about Dreyfus. I did say 'associate with' as opposed to write it yourself. Never mind. Difficult concept. # Yes it is a difficult concept. I generalised with ebul but you pick up on one specific thing that he said. Should we therefore not agree with someone because we disagreed on a different point earlier. Crazy. So should I tell Ebul that I don't agree with his stance on Evans because I disagree with his Dreyfus analogy? |
|
By:
barney
thats what i thought has a deal been done with bbc to change their stance ? not many people coming out of this with much credit |
|
By:
just looked back at me previous thread... the actual thread sais "sponsors can leave but will be immediately replaced" hmmmm!
|
|
By:
I'd hoped Ebul when he was not on here was just out hugging paedos but since he has denied that unfortunately he probably spends his down time strangling hookers.
|
|
By:
there was an Oldham director (i think he was a dir) on SSN last night and he said it was discussed with 6 board members and they had decided to go ahead but it was not a done deal yet. Didn't give details why. WTF happened in between? Was there a couple more directors yet to decide? Or did they change their mind after threats (prob made after the SSN interview). I don't believe that Evans could have taken the contract but pulled out because of concern for building workers etc. Seriously, he should try Rangers.
|
|
By:
lurka
there was an Oldham director (i think he was a dir) on SSN last night and he said it was discussed with 6 board members and they had decided to go ahead but it was not a done deal yet. Didn't give details why. WTF happened in between? Was there a couple more directors yet to decide? Or did they change their mind after threats (prob made after the SSN interview). I don't believe that Evans could have taken the contract but pulled out because of concern for building workers etc. Seriously, he should try Rangers He should go to your team lurka. He could team up with the boaby flasher wonder winger. |
|
By:
he should try them, detached, fairly desperate. might have another job getting paid. Don't the masses want to see him working another job?
|
|
By:
Yer a bit behind the times lurka.
|
|
By:
Could Macdonald be called as a prosecution witness for this review (do they have them) or be called by the defence ????
I don't know how reviews work so might have got wrong end of the stick. |
|
By:
The Criminal Cases Review Commission reviews possible miscarriages of justice. Their guidelines :
If we are going to be able to refer your case for an appeal we will usually need to find some important new evidence or legal argument. Usually this means something that was not covered at your trial or your appeal. For example it may be new evidence not known about at the time, or something that has changed since your trial, like the appearance of a new witness or a new development in science. We can’t usually look again at things that were known about by the jury, the judge or the magistrates, even if you believe that they made the wrong decision in your case. We need to identify something new that wasn’t raised back then, and that the judges at your appeal didn’t know either, that makes your case look significantly different now. In some cases it might be a new legal argument, rather than new evidence, that means we can refer a case. New legal argument is usually some significant new point of law that has not been made before, such as a complaint that the judge’s summing-up was faulty, or that the prosecution applied the law incorrectly. |
|
By:
The CCRC will only decide whether or not a case should go to the appeals court and will only do so if they think there is a real possibility of the case being quashed or a change in sentence.
|
|
By:
this is why i think Evans should have sought court orders against facebook and twitter before the CCRC appeal. If he did I think we'd know about it already. But maybe he has something else to go on. Or perhaps some groundbreaking rape decision in the meantime, which, again we'd have heard about by now. The CCRC is not like an appeal court at all. The judge's directions have been reviewed twice already after legal argument.
|
|
By:
the jury was a majority 12-0 based on the evidence submitted at the time of the trial as well...a sort of Barcelona v Elche aggregate score
 |
|
By:
good disscusion on newsnight earlier. One woman said she wouldn't have convicted based on what she'd read. Funeral tomorrow at 10AM
|
|
By:
|
|
By:
|
|
By:
i was only saying that because of surprise. Evans should be allowed to work currently because there is no rule that says he can't. I'm not saying that's right. But if he shouldn't there must be a written rule enacted that says he can't. That is the way the legal system works. If something is prohibited (like rape), it has to be written down somewhere. End of, and it would avoid all this twitter justice nonsense
|
|
By:
nobody (state, FA or prison system) will step in and make that decision. This could go on for a year or more. ridiculous
|