Ched Evans New club Confirmed

Birmingham, Guildford,juries finding people guilty. Justice? Hardly.

His comeback will be followed closely, pity it wasn`t with the Blades where he should be.

I wonder how the woman in question would fare on a lie detector?

Shane,
Regretably,The Blades caved in to Jessica Pennis etc.

As "the woman in question" was utterly wrecked by her drink intake it is unlikely she actually knows what really happened.
A sad state of affairs,imo.

Lynch mobs. Casting stones, self righteous bstds who are probably guilty of plenty themselves. I find such types utterly loathsome.

Probably thought she had cracked it. Pro footballer, back to hotel room, then Zilch! Hell hath no fury.

Roy,
You are correct.
Just how would anybody defend themselves of an "historical rape claim" made against them?

An almost impossible task in the current climate Racing. Too many people only too willing to hold a burning torch. Politicians fearful of their positions therefore disabling them from voicing their TRUE feelings and opinions. Guilty first and innocent only by sheer good fortune. In this country your are GUILTY UNTIL PROVED INNOCENT. Chances of the latter becoming more and more remote. I would hate to have my DNA stored in a databank. Imagine disposing of a **** tip near the scene of a crime? The cops would fit you up irrespective of any other evidence.

Cigarette tip!

What a bloody world we live in!! Can't say f a g tip now!!!!!!

The "Ken Barlow" case sums it up,Roy.
The complinant claimed being raped by the accused.
Amazingly,she went back two weeks later for another "portion".
Quite how the case came to Court beggars belief

Exactly Racing. Raped, returned for more!!!! She should have been jailed!

Alongside the CPS cretin that allowed the case to go to Court,Roy

Now that I would applaud!

Good call Oldham its a sad state of affairs when a person is trying to earn a living after being in prison having served his time,be a lot more people on the dole now if it happened to all.

I'm all for the rehabilitation of offenders. Surely he could get a job shelf-stacking at Asda or Tesco. Most CONVICTED rapists would happily settle for that I imagine.

Most convicted rapists wouldn't be able to get any job at all if they had to disclose it, why should a footballer have the divine right to return to his "trade"?

Just because someone is convicted of a crime it doesn't mean they are guilty!

As for the shelf stacking comment? The flaming torch bearers would find fault in that. They just want blood!! Sad bstds.

Jan 7, 2015 -- 7:48PM, paulie wallnuts wrote:

Terrific news.....Hope he scores regularly at Oldham.....

They may well REAP the rewards

I'm sorry to say that the likes of racing star and evil Roy slade would never believe a woman could possibly not deserving of rape, borderline psychopatfs

Psychopaths *

why should he be allowed to stack shelves if playing football is too good for him
I for one would not like to work next to him.
if he wants to work again perhaps he should start by calling off his utterly disgusting acolytes
"the ched evans supporters group"

I'm sorry if I offended any shelfstackers     

I'd promised myself I wouldnt get involved in any posts/threads regarding this odious waste of skin, but I genuinely cant believe the amount of Evans apologists/defenders on this site, especially the attackers of the female as if we all had first-hand knowledge of her character flaws.
She may well have the morals of an alley cat, I really wouldnt know but it still doesnt give people the right to rape her. I've been blind drunk several times in my life but it doesnt mean everyone has carte-blanche to @rser@pe me surely?
EvilRoy is normally the voice of reason and his assertion that everyone convicted is not necessarily guilty is correct, however enough of them are to make the system robust enough for me.
Evans has a right to earn a living, no-one is stopping him but I wouldnt be able to return to my current employment should I be convicted of rape and rightly so. Let him disappear and do something else. There are some crimes the public will never forgive/forget and sex offences are some of them.
Stuart Hall - fckd
Gary Glitter - fckd
Max Clifford - fckd
Rolf Harris - fckd
Jonathan King - fckd
John Leslie - fckd ( wasnt even charged!)
Bill Cosby - prob 1.01 to be fckd ( not charged yet )
Prince Andrew - prob 1.01 not to be charged but reputation fckd.


Act like an animal and reap the consequences I'm afraid.

Captain Christy and drlovepants - you have pretty much stole my thunder on this. The level of ignorance and misogyny exhibited on this thread by the Ched Evans apologists is staggering.I would suggest they actually read the case and understand the legal arguments but I suspect reading, spelling, writing or any kind of intellectual thought may prove difficult for them. Honestly I have rarely come across such a load of ill-informed bollocks.

Captain Christy! Would you bet your life on him being  guilty? As for you? Just a complete no mark who would have hung Stefan Kiszko just because a jury found him guilty. Me, psychopath? I think you and certain others on here fit that billing far better than I. Lynch mob morons.

evil........she did lie in her testimony so i agree guilt not a certainty

William Roache, acquitted, Michael le Vell, acquitted. Those of you that believe Ched Evans is guilty must also believe beyond doubt that the aforementioned were innocent because a jury made your minds up for you. They may well be but I prefer to make my own mind up on such matters. Having to have someone make your minds up for you just shows the depth of your ability to reason independently.

If banging some steamed up bird who was bang up for it until remembering what she did a day later is a crime, I would imagine plenty on this forum are guilty.

So if I mounted a campaign on behalf of Rolf Harris I presume some of you gentlemen would support me. Do you want him back on Childrens' TV when he is released ?

Exactly Cardiff. There are too many on here who scream guilty simply because it suits them. I have seen far too many miscarriages of justice to get swept in by the mob. Navel Gazer is someone on here that knows my background regarding such matters. I therefore speak from experience and not from some overriding sense of misplaced righteousness.

Salmon. His guilt is not in question.

Why not ? I don't think he ever admitted it. I specifically didn't say Hall as he pleaded guilty. I think in the Harris case it was largely his victim's word against his.

Bad comparison Salmon

Harris was found guilty on twelve counts. Pretty overwhelming evidence. Ched Evans? One female drunk. I can see the problems there.

Marcus Cicero has called some of the posts on this fred spot on. He used the phrase "ill-informed b*ollocks" and that hits the nail on the head. The verdict and conviction were completely sound. He should have served longer. Not only that but he has showed no remorse for his actions, and the behaviour of him and his "supporters" is disgusting - lower than low.

Horrible tw@t and no mistake.

Oh dear. Verdict was completely UNSOUND. REASONABLE DOUBT was there aplenty.

As for remorse? Would you show remorse if you were not guilty???? Is it not possible he may actually be innocent? Hang everybody!!! Proven guilty in this country means nothing! Far too many serving time for crimes they did not commit. SHOULD THEY SHOW REMORSE???? Too many law enforcers only too willing to balance their books at ANY cost!

"Getting a result" is all the Police have ever cared about.
Whether somebody is innocent is of no consequence to them as has been shown on numerous occasions.

oldham choked under threats to family and staff
hilarious, not only are they making up the rules themselves but those crying foul are even using threats and blackmail to do it.

Saying that the clip of him leaving his house with his latest sort didn't show him in much of a light tbh.
She caring large handbag and pulling luggage while he doesn't assist, small things tell you a great deal

racingstar 07 Jan 15 21:18 Joined: 22 Oct 08 | Topic/replies: 8,063 | Blogger: racingstar's blog
Roy,
You are correct.
Just how would anybody defend themselves of an "historical rape claim" made against them?


This post sums it up perfectly. Before anything else you would be considered guilty. You would have little chance of clearing your name in today's hang first society.

If you understood the case you would see that the verdict WAS sound. Just because you have no understanding of the law, doesn't mean the judge and jury does.

Utter tripe.

You just said the judge and jury have no understanding of the law!!

Your posts betray both your lack of understanding and your lack of desire to treat the case objectively. The result is that you come across as one of those irritating drunken gobsh1tes in the pub that thinks he kinows everything but that everyone laughs at behind his back.

Oh, and your 12.22 post also demonstrates that you are not capable of reading even the most basic sentences, which is presumably why you haven't even bothered moving on to more complex legal concepts.

I rest my case.Guilty because the jury says so. That's your stance. I prefer to make my own mind up due to my ability to think for myself. Don't try to interact with someone ahead of you in every way imaginable.

Your response suggests the judge and jury have no understanding of the law. Try reading it again you clot.

No, he is guilty because he broke the law. The jury simply came to the correct verdict.

It says the opposite you tool.

HE was found guilty in a court of law  re this second chance  supporters  let me ask you this if he had raped   YOUR daughter / or wife , would you hold the same view  re second chance .

Well I have tried to see both sides of the argument,I agree that there are some "young ladies" that frequent places knowing full well what they are getting into. The so called "glamorous lifestyle" out with the stars picture in the paper and all that. There are also those that scream foul! Even when consensual etc. The other side of the coin is whilst I accept that if he believes he is innocent why should he apologise? Having said all of that Women/girls kids etc all have the right to grow up knowing that abuse of any kind is not the "norm" I.E it is not acceptabe to go get pissedcome home slap the wife or kids and worse just because you can't handle your drink. I for one signed the campaign against him being reinstated @ Sheffield Utd I have also signed petitions against him playing for any club in the UK or abroad. I have no particular axe to grind with him I don't know him and I abhor the police and the way they stitch people up and the court system etc. However the system we use in this country rightly or wrongly found him guilty and therefore until his conviction is overturned @ appeal it may well not be he should be treated the same as the rest of us, plenty of traders etc use this site and plenty of businessmen etc so ask your self this if someone had been done for theft would you employ them to carry cash to the bank no of course you wouldn't. As a parent I don't want to my kids watching celebrities getting paid and it seen as being acceptable to act in a way the man in the street couldn't. So if he wins his appeal great get back on the pitch and score goals until then go use whatever status he has left to some good. However don't expect to carry on as if nothing has happened.

off topic, but the op originally posted a joke (a bad one perhaps), the clue was in the spelling ... seems a bit daft to have a heated debate over a second rate footballer with a criminal record

And got no credit for it, made me chuckle.

true, maybe everyone saw it and thought it was shoite

Marychain. It says nothing of the sort you illiterate tool.

marychain1 08 Jan 15 12:20 Joined: 05 Apr 05 | Topic/replies: 24,395 | Blogger: marychain1's blog
If you understood the case you would see that the verdict WAS sound. Just because you have no understanding of the law, doesn't mean the judge and jury does.


Just because I have no understanding of the law......... Doesn't mean the judge and jury does.  Now that suggests they have NO  understanding of the law either!  ( Doesn't mean the judge and jury have an understanding of the law!)

  Got it yet???? Simpleton.

one of the reasons given in the local press were that staff at the club have received threats will are unfit for purpose police force do anything about that ?

nafc

I didn't notice the joke, it's quite a good one!

Jan 8, 2015 -- 10:20AM, drlovepants wrote:

I'd promised myself I wouldnt get involved in any posts/threads regarding this odious waste of skin, but I genuinely cant believe the amount of Evans apologists/defenders on this site, especially the attackers of the female as if we all had first-hand knowledge of her character flaws. She may well have the morals of an alley cat, I really wouldnt know but it still doesnt give people the right to rape her. I've been blind drunk several times in my life but it doesnt mean everyone has carte-blanche to @rser@pe me surely?EvilRoy is normally the voice of reason and his assertion that everyone convicted is not necessarily guilty is correct, however enough of them are to make the system robust enough for me. Evans has a right to earn a living, no-one is stopping him but I wouldnt be able to return to my current employment should I be convicted of rape and rightly so. Let him disappear and do something else. There are some crimes the public will never forgive/forget and sex offences are some of them.Stuart Hall - fckdGary Glitter - fckdMax Clifford - fckdRolf Harris - fckdJonathan King - fckdJohn Leslie - fckd ( wasnt even charged!)Bill Cosby - prob 1.01 to be fckd ( not charged yet )Prince Andrew - prob 1.01 not to be charged but reputation fckd.Act like an animal and reap the consequences I'm afraid.

One of the best comments I've read on this sorry saga, imo of course.

I'm not really sure why one player was found guilty and the other wasn't but just out of interest, if you got a call during the early hours from a mate to come to a hotel room and there was a girl there so out of it that you could do anything you liked to her, does that mean it's OK to do so?

Anyone answering yes, by the same taken must also be saying if you see a drunk laying on a park bench that it's perfectly acceptable behaviour to empty his pockets too.

Double post alert but apparently the deal's off now and he has also made this statement:

"Upon legal advice, I was told not to discuss the events in question. This silence has been misinterpreted as arrogance and I would like to state that this could not be further from the truth.

"I do remain limited at present by what I can say due to the ongoing referral to the Criminal Cases Review Commission and whilst I continue to maintain my innocence, I wish to make it clear that I wholeheartedly apologise for the effects that night in Rhyl has had on many people, not least the woman concerned.

"Finally, it has been claimed that those using social media in an abusive and vindictive way towards this woman are supporters of mine. I wish to make it clear that these people are not my supporters and I condemn their actions entirely and will continue to do so.”

His words or what his advisers have advised him to say?

Was very anti Ched Evans until i read some facts about the case, and saw the CCTV of the girl entering the hotel.

Though he clearly is no angel and tbh seems a pretty horrible character, there are definitely a few questions that need to be answered particularly the deleted Facebook comments and deleted tweets from the young girl to her circle of friends.

He definitely take advantage of circumstances but whether it constitutes rape is another matter.

Oh of course jamesdean, I'm just reproducing them here though.

What it all boils down to is that if a bloke gets a call from a mate to say come to a hotel room because he has a girl there and when the bloke turns up and sees she is totally out of it, some blokes will take advantage and some won't but the ones who do will plead their innocence and claim it's not rape because she didn't object. Others will argue she didn't because she was in no state to and using the same logic it's unlikely she consented either.

I think some less intelligent blokes think there's only one form of rape and that's when a woman is sober and is overpowered in a public place and dragged somewhere out of the way and violently sexually assaulted by someone she doesn't know and that was the earliest time they became aware of the bloke involved. There are also maybe some blokes who feel they would have done what Evans did in his situation and maybe even already have and feel they can't judge him as a rapist or it will also mean they must be too.

No doubt those same people would take a totally differing view if the situation involved their mother, wife, girlfriend, daughter or even granddaughter and maybe even Ched Evans is included in that.

ive heard hes put in for a job, coaching doncaster belles

Found guilty by a jury. That is not proof of guilt.Anyone who thinks it is has to be naive in the extreme. The word of a jilted drunken female who lied at more than one stage suggests the verdict may not be safe. It's happened before and will again.

Commercial realities win again as I always knew they would. The club would have gone bust in 12 months if they had signed him.

A joke conviction......the trollop was looking for a good seeing to.....and got it.....when she did she cried rape....the dirty mink should get 25 years  in jail herself.....for ruining a good mans life.....

Of course being found guilty by a jury doesn't necessarily mean he was but nor does a victim liar mean he wasn't either.

As for total brain dead idiots like paulie numbnuts, please tell me he has been allowed to pass on his seed......anyone would think he has previously done the same as Evans going by the obvious bitterness in his views.

Oh and that reminds me, must catch up on a few The Walking Dead episodes online tonight.

Ima.....or John O Hara....whatever you call yourself thesesdays ya piece of Shiite.....I have ya blocked with years and I cannot read what rubbish you write.....well it was rubbish when I hadn't you blocked.....I assume its still the same....

LOL...no pauline numbnuts, I think you will find it's 1.01 that I was spot on about you.

And I'm calling myself Sean Scanlon these days, as I have been from day one and it's only thick as fcuk idiots like you who haven't yet cottoned on that I'm not John O'Hara.

Oh and by the way, how's Nick Williams doing for jockeys these days?

'A joke conviction......the trollop was looking for a good seeing to.....and got it.....when she did she cried rape....the dirty mink should get 25 years  in jail herself.....for ruining a good mans life '.....




The language you use and your total lack of any kind of humanity tells us everything !



You well nuts are the biggest ''toby'' on the forum !

Totally off topic i've noticed most of the biggest tools on here seem to like their .............................button.

It gives them something to do with their hands whilst trying to think of what to type next.

Drives me mad when they say he shouldn't play football again.
So people are saying if he was a plumber and raped the same woman it's ok to go back plumbing.
They both do a job,commit the same crime  but mmmm.
Dirty Den killed a bloke but he went back into acting in the biggest soap on TV.
Think a lot  of people got double standards.whether he is innocent or guilty he as served his time.

well nuts seems a very embittered individual..... plenty on here know why don't they Robo ! ?...   

It's the time of year that bookies are offering special event odds for the coming year. Just found a couple on Bet365 :

Odds on a man landing on the surface of the sun 2015            50/1
Odds on Paulie miserynuts having sex with a female in 2015*     1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000/1


* ones having to be inflated do not count as part of this event

Ps i've had a tenner on the sun one, reckon it's a possibility.

EVILROYSLADE - God you are a moron. No wonder the country is in such mess with idiots like you wandering around the place. The jury was satisfied that there was enough PROOF OF GUILT to find him guilty. Unless you were on that jury you cannot possibly know what this PROOF OF GUILT was. You fecking imbecile!

Sex change and Arsenal Ladies is the only option at the moment

It's never Gunner happen !   

Cicero. You know nothing you fool. Jury verdicts are NOT proof of guilt. It is their opinion. Just the same as if you were a juror. God help the defendant.You arsewipe. You are the imbecile.

A jury convicted Stefan Kiszko, Timothy Evans, The Birmingham and Guildford lot. You would still have them all in jail you pathetic nonce.

Just to add, you would not be so abusive to my face. That is guaranteed.You probably still sleep with your mother you suckling piglet. Thick as pigshit and fat on mummys milk.

By Olivia Goldhill3:50PM BST 04 Sep 2014Olivia Goldhill
Comments14 Comments
“People think that miscarriages of justice are rare and exceptional,” says Dr Michael Naughton, founder of the UK Innocence Project. “But every single day, people are overturning convictions for criminal offences. Miscarriages of justice are routine, even mundane features of the criminal justice system. They are systemic.”
On Wednesday, two men were released from prison in North Carolina after DNA evidence overturned their convictions for rape and murder. Similar miscarriages of justice could happen in Britain – and have done, surprisingly recently.
As recently as last year, there were innocent men inside Britain's prisons - as these high-profile cases that were eventually ruled as wrongful convictions show.
Victor Nealon
Convicted: 1997
Related Articles
Half-brothers freed after 30 years for rape and murder 03 Sep 2014
Man spotted weeping next to body of murdered horsewoman 04 Sep 2014
Parents reunited with five-year-old Ashya King, but fight goes on 03 Sep 2014
Your case or mine? The crimes we must solve for ourselves 05 Sep 2014
Time served: 17 years
Released: 2013
Nealon spent 17 years in prison for attempted sexual assault – though police officers never carried out DNA testing on the victim’s clothing. At his trial in 1997, the court was told that no DNA evidence was available. But privately funded DNA tests discovered that the victim’s clothes had been kept sealed and untested. In fact, the garments did contain DNA samples - from a man who wasn’t Nealon. The Criminal Cases Review Commission refused to investigate the evidence twice, and only carried out a review at Nealon’s third appeal. When Nealon was released in December 2013, he was given just £46 discharge money and spent his first night of freedom on the streets. This June, the Ministry of Justice ruled that Nealon would not get compensation for his 17 years behind bars.
Sam Hallam
Convicted: 2005
Time served: Seven years
Released: 2012
Hallam was 18 when he received a life sentence for the death of trainee chef Essayas Kassahun, but judges were told that Hallam was the victim of a “serious miscarriage of justice” when his conviction was quashed in 2012. Evidence from Hallam’s mobile phone showed he was not at the crime scene, and judges found that, for “reasons that escape us”, his phone was not investigated by the police. Hallam also suffered the loss of his father, who committed suicide when Hallam was sent to prison. “He’s never going to get over his miscarriage of justice,” says Dr Naughton.

Sam Hallam leaves the Court of Appeal with his mother Wendy and surrounded by jubilant friends
Barry George
Convicted: 2001
Time served: Eight years
Released: 2008
George was convicted of the murder of television presenter Jill Dando and was released after two trials and two appeals. His sentence was finally overturned after scientific evidence was ruled inadmissible by the trial judge. He was denied compensation and is taking his claim to the European Court of Human Rights.

Barry George spent eight years in prison after being wrongly convicted of the murder of TV presenter Jill Dando
Sally Clark
Convicted: 1999
Time served: Three years
Released: 2003
Clark was wrongfully sentenced to life in prison for the deaths of one young son in 1996, and another, a two-month old, in 1998. She was released after three years in jail after an expert witness, Professor Roy Meadow, was discredited. Meadow wrote in his book that “one sudden infant death is a tragedy, two is suspicious and three is murder, unless proven otherwise”. He claimed in court that there is a one in 73 million chance of two cot deaths in a wealthy family, but the Royal Statistical Society said there was no basis for this claim. Following her release, other cases that relied on evidence from Meadow were re-examined, and another mother, Angela Cannings, also had her conviction for murder overturned. But Clark never recovered from her imprisonment and became an alcoholic. She died of alcohol poisoning in 2007.

As she left the High Court in 2003, Sally Clark said: 'There are no winners here.'
Paul Blackburn
Convicted: 1978
Time served: 25 years
Released: 2003
Blackburn spent a quarter of a century in prison after he was convicted, aged 15, for the sexual assault and attempted murder of a nine-year-old boy. The prosecution depended on a confession by Blackburn that was written after four hours of police interrogation. In 2005, appeal judges found that police “did not tell the truth” when they said that the confession was offered freely and in Blackburn’s own words. Blackburn says the statement was dictated to him, and expert testimony found it unlikely that a badly educated 15-year-old could have spelled so many technical terms correctly. The appeal court ruled that Blackburn’s confession should never have been considered evidence.

Asked if he could return to a normal life, Paul Blackburn said: "I don't know. What is a normal life after 25 years in there?'
Are innocent men still in prison today?
Miscarriages of justice will continue, says Dr Naughton, as long as our criminal justice system relies on unreliable forms of evidence, such as theories from expert witnesses, eyewitness identification and circumstantial evidence – all of which have been scientifically undermined.
Even DNA evidence can be discredited, due to problems with partial samples, mixed samples and “innocent transference". Dr Naughton explains that if two people shake hands, each will contain a trace of the other’s DNA. “I can then go into a pub that you’ve never been in or pick up a gun that you’ve never touched. I can shoot somebody with that gun and your DNA will be on that gun because I’ve transferred it. The public doesn’t know these things,” says Dr Naughton.
And cases such as Blackburn reveal the problems with “parole deal” sentencing. Prisoners applying for parole are more likely to be released if they complete courses to show that they’ve reduced their risk of re-offending. Those that won’t admit their guilt and refuse to do so can end up with longer sentences than if they’d pleaded guilty, says Dr Naughton. “They end up in this limbo situation. We call it the parole deal, where prisoners maintaining innocence are trapped in prison,” he adds.
One of the most high profile criminals who maintains his innocence today has been continually denied parole in part because he insists he is innocent. Raymond Gilbert was convicted of murder in 1981 and could have been released from prison in 1996 if he’d plead guilty. Instead, he is still in prison 33 years later.
Dr Naughton claims that the presumption of innocence leaves those accused of crime vulnerable to wrongful convictions because fewer resources are allocated to the defence team. Instead, the prosecution and police are well funded to chip away at the presumed innocent status.
He also makes a distinction between miscarriages of justice and “abortions of justice”, where police actively undermine a fair trial. The Criminal Cases Review Commission was founded in response to just such a case, after police manufactured evidence against the Guilford Four and the Birmingham Six, who were accused of IRA bombings.
“There was a real crisis of confidence in the criminal justice system when those cases were revealed to be wrongful convictions,” says Dr Naughton.
Today, Britain’s justice system is respected as a fair judge of criminal activity. But no system can be perfect and, as the history of miscarriages of justice shows, innocent people continue to spend time in prison.
* Dr Michael Naughton, senior lecturer at the University of Bristol, is the founder and director of the University of Bristol Innocence Project.
       
449
       
219
       
0
       
59
       
727
   
Emai

Just a few that were found guilty by your precious jury system you bstd Cicero.

Miscarriages of justice will continue, says Dr Naughton, as long as our criminal justice system relies on unreliable forms of evidence, such as theories from expert witnesses, eyewitness identification and circumstantial evidence – all of which have been scientifically undermined.
Even DNA evidence can be discredited, due to problems with partial samples, mixed samples and “innocent transference". Dr Naughton explains that if two people shake hands, each will contain a trace of the other’s DNA. “I can then go into a pub that you’ve never been in or pick up a gun that you’ve never touched. I can shoot somebody with that gun and your DNA will be on that gun because I’ve transferred it. The public doesn’t know these things,” says Dr Naughton.
And cases such as Blackburn reveal the problems with “parole deal” sentencing. Prisoners applying for parole are more likely to be released if they complete courses to show that they’ve reduced their risk of re-offending. Those that won’t admit their guilt and refuse to do so can end up with longer sentences than if they’d pleaded guilty, says Dr Naughton. “They end up in this limbo situation. We call it the parole deal, where prisoners maintaining innocence are trapped in prison,” he adds.
One of the most high profile criminals who maintains his innocence today has been continually denied parole in part because he insists he is innocent. Raymond Gilbert was convicted of murder in 1981 and could have been released from prison in 1996 if he’d plead guilty. Instead, he is still in prison 33 years later.!!!

A jury verdict of guilty proves nothing. FACT! Now don't make a bigger fool of yourself by insisting otherwise.

Unfortunately in this country there are thousands of rape convictions.  In the eyes of the law they should face the same punishment.  However most serve their time and can live a live of anonymity.  They are free to restart their live and get a job (assuming there are no safeguarding concerns) and their employee agrees.   Evans had this opportunity but has been hounded out by the masses/media and mob.  Irrespective of the decision on this employment, his trial has been in the public domain, and for the rest of his life he will be accused, abused and vilified. 

For me this is the ultimate price he will pay, and very different from your average rapist (is there is such a thing!)

Everyone deserves a second chance...just my view

Unfortunately in this country there are thousands of rape convictions.  In the eyes of the law they should face the same punishment.  However most serve their time and can live a live of anonymity.  They are free to restart their live and get a job (assuming there are no safeguarding concerns) and their employee agrees.   Evans had this opportunity but has been hounded out by the masses/media and mob.  Irrespective of the decision on this employment, his trial has been in the public domain, and for the rest of his life he will be accused, abused and vilified. 

For me this is the ultimate price he will pay, and very different from your average rapist (is there is such a thing!)

Everyone deserves a second chance...just my view

This circus just gets dafter and dafter.
Now offence is taken because Hillsborough was mentioned as part of an analogy.
They have completely taken his words out of context, he was talking about the principle of how things have been wrong in the past and later proven to be.

Soon we will have to have a written apology as part of any statement made to the media.
Maybe district of Hillsborough will have to be re-named so any future mention of the area doesn't cause offence somehow.

The lesson here unfortunately is to look after yourself and let the rest of society self destruct into stupidity.

I couldn't agree more Dusty!

The internet/social media has made the chattering classes' redundant !



They're all Jimmy the Judge's NOW !

Roy old bean,
Quick question, you seem very down on the jury system that has served this country for many years now?
You are right in your assertion that it isnt perfect but can you tell me a better way?
Surely leaving the verdict in the hands of one person could lead to more of the guilty walking free rather than more of the innocent getting wrongly convicted?
I'm particularly thinking of some of the nuttier, more controversial and "star-struck" judges we've been blessed with down the years

I agree Doc. There is no better way. You know as well as I do though, along with any rational minded person, that the system is way from being perfect and verdicts are flawed. You only have to look at some of the vitriol on here from those who can see no other possible conclusion to this sad affair. They would have you guilty before a word was spoken in your defence. Rape is an abhorrent crime. Some have asked what would I do were it my wife or daughter. That question is absolutely irrelevant in this case. If it were known beyond doubt that Evans WAS guilty, either by his own admission or other means I would have doubled his sentence. It happens however that like many more before him he still protests his innocence! Are we therefore to ignore his protests, simply believing ALL that has been said by the "victim?" Her ability to lie has been well documented. The cases I have referred to in the previous posts show just how so called justice got it wrong big time! The likes of Marcus Simpleton and Marychain  seem to think that it is a certainty Evans is guilty simply because a jury says so! Therefore they would have agreed with Timothy Evans being hanged for Christie's crimes,  Stefan Kiszko incarcerated for ever for the murder of Lesley Molseed whilst the killer Ronald Castree remained at large.  Their idiotic assumption that just because a jury, possibly made up of people who would struggle to complete the Beano crossword returned a guilty verdict on Evans, then it MUST be true! It is beyond belief. He may BE guilty, then again I would certainly NOT want to bet my life on it!!!  The flaming torch bearers may one day be on the wrong end of a charge. I hope that when they try to prove their innocence they dont come up against the likes of themselves!