He was convicted. Then he got an even better lawyer to get him off on appeal.Innocent until proven guilty is what we have in this country. Therefore if he's not guilty he is innocent. We also don't carry out vigilante justice because we don't agree with a court's decision. No matter how much we think we're Sherlock Holmes.
The guy hasn't been convicted of anything and as such should be treated as innocent. Anything else is a perversion of our justice system.
Answer me one thing. If he didn't do anything wrong why did he leave the hotel via a fire escape?He was also convicted on very murky evidence in the first place. To prove the victim was drunk, they used CCTV of her stumbling at a takeaway IIRC.
He went through the hassle of a retrial after he was convicted and served his jail time. That to me, at least says he was desperate to clear his name, and he was found ‘not guilty’ in a retrial. I put my faith in the rule of law and the criminal justice system (the bedrock of western civilisation), not a few feminist journalists who want to take this as further ‘proof’ of the boogeyman that is the ‘patriarchy’.
AFAIK the courts don't declare innocence. The verdicts are Guilty or Not Guilty. Innocence is a moral judgement outside of the court's purview.
Agreed, which is why it's important to note the difference, as there was a large public response which blamed the potential victim for 'lying', which may not have been the case. He was not proven to be guilty, and therefore you must assume innocence, and he absolutely deserves his life and profession back. However he was not proven to be innocent, and whilst this is nuanced, there is a difference.
Personal opinion is that what he did was, at best, morally reprehensible, and I'd rather we didn't sign him based on that.
He was proven to be guilty
He was retried, with new evidence and found not guilty. My personal stance is the same as yours, and I don't like it, however it is a fact.
It’s also a fact that Jeremy Thorpe was found innocent but now is very much assumed guilty
It’s also a fact that Jeremy Thorpe was found innocent but now is very much assumed guilty
Innocent or not - 5 goals since coming out of prison? no thanks
Like others its a no from me but what a load of shit spouted on here by the high and mighty self righteous.
If Robins wanted him I would have no objection to him being our player, if it was felt he could add something then I would want him. Why? because despite what the hanging judges on here say he was acquitted and is free to ply his trade, is a father with the woman who stood by him and he is entitled to earn a wage.
If it was "he who is without sin cast the first stone" then Evans who come out unscathed.
Innocent until proven guilty is what we have in this country. Therefore if he's not guilty he is innocent. We also don't carry out vigilante justice because we don't agree with a court's decision. No matter how much we think we're Sherlock Holmes.
The guy hasn't been convicted of anything and as such should be treated as innocent. Anything else is a perversion of our justice system.
This is far easier to agree with!This. He’s a c****, but not a criminal
If the manager felt he would benefit the team that would be enough for me.There are enough footballing reasons to not want him but the risk of disrupting the relative harmony we currently have also needs to be factored in.
Like others its a no from me but what a load of shit spouted on here by the high and mighty self righteous.
If Robins wanted him I would have no objection to him being our player, if it was felt he could add something then I would want him. Why? because despite what the hanging judges on here say he was acquitted and is free to ply his trade, is a father with the woman who stood by him and he is entitled to earn a wage.
If it was "he who is without sin cast the first stone" then Evans who come out unscathed.
The reference is from the bible rather than the Quran but I take your point.What an apt reference given your name
He was found not guilty after the original prosecution was quashed on appeal and a retrial. He is certainly not the beast Marlon King was.
If he comes here it is a risk to the club because of the trial, he is a controversial figure and there are still people trying to punish him even though he served 2 1/2 years in prison, I think that's enough.
He has scored 34 goals in 67 league one games. Therefore he is a proven league one striker.
On balance I'd rather the club steered clear of him but for footballing reasons he would be a suitable replacement for McNulty.
Tbf most of us have fucked the odd pig in our time!David Cameron fucked a pig, yet 51% of the country supported the twat....
Have you ever seen either of them play to compare?
You don't mention that 29 of his goals were in the 2011 season before he had his "holiday".
Here is a compilation of his goals, you may not agree but his style isn't altogether dissimilar to McNulty is it?
As for 2011 being significant, that is not surprising, he had personal issues for some years that begin around that time ..
No, he has not been declared innocent. He has been found not guilty based on the evidence presented. It is a completely different thing.
He was found not guilty after the original prosecution was quashed on appeal and a retrial. He is certainly not the beast Marlon King was.
If he comes here it is a risk to the club because of the trial, he is a controversial figure and there are still people trying to punish him even though he served 2 1/2 years in prison, I think that's enough.
He has scored 34 goals in 67 league one games. Therefore he is a proven league one striker.
On balance I'd rather the club steered clear of him but for footballing reasons he would be a suitable replacement for McNulty.
Answer me one thing. If he didn't do anything wrong why did he leave the hotel via a fire escape?
Why no outcry about Ogogo? He was actually convicted!
Double standards?
Ah, so we are only talking about degrees of behaviour now?Bit of a different charge / crime isn't it?
Ah, so we are only talking about degrees of behaviour now?
We are not if someone is trying to defend Evans.Ah, so we are only talking about degrees of behaviour now?
We are not if someone is trying to defend Evans.
Everyone knows the law. You must get clear consent. In the original trial he said he had nowhere to stay. So he got a taxi to the hotel. But it came out that his mother lived just a couple of miles away. So what about the texts the players sent each other? They even said about having a pissed up bird. Everything together was enough to convict him.
So in the retrial his solicitor managed to put enough doubt in minds. He wasn't made innocent.
I suppose someone who robs a loaf of bread so they can eat is the same as someone who robs a bank.
If and when you have daughters that are at the age where they fully join society you will understand that they need protection from people like him.
The appeal court judgment – which was made before the retrial, but can only now be reported – allowed new evidence from two witnesses who gave testimony about the complainant’s sexual preferences and the language she used during sex. It led to her being questioned in detail in open court about intimate details of her sex life.
From Ched Evans: footballer found not guilty of rape in retrial
You don't even need children tbh, and I think it's safe to say that over the years we've been on the same 'side' over this.We are not if someone is trying to defend Evans.
Everyone knows the law. You must get clear consent. In the original trial he said he had nowhere to stay. So he got a taxi to the hotel. But it came out that his mother lived just a couple of miles away. So what about the texts the players sent each other? They even said about having a pissed up bird. Everything together was enough to convict him.
So in the retrial his solicitor managed to put enough doubt in minds. He wasn't made innocent.
I suppose someone who robs a loaf of bread so they can eat is the same as someone who robs a bank.
If and when you have daughters that are at the age where they fully join society you will understand that they need protection from people like him.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?