northsomersetred Posted January 5, 2015 Report Share Posted January 5, 2015 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonBristolian Posted January 5, 2015 Report Share Posted January 5, 2015 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stortz Posted January 5, 2015 Report Share Posted January 5, 2015 There's nothing new there though. All of the 'facts' mentioned have been continually discussed and, in most cases, shown to be untrue or irrelevant. I think both the fact that he seems to think being prosecuted for identifying the victim equals a miscarriage of justice and his failure to spot the fact the events described could still be rape shows the level of seriousness this should be taken with. The case has also been appealed on the grounds the verdicts were incompatible and the appeal was refused because the verdicts weren't seen as being incompatible. Which they aren't. I think what people who think the verdicts are incompatible do is perceive that the guilty and not guilty verdicts indicate a belief that Evans was guilty and MacDonald was innocent which isn't necessarily the case. What it actually means is the jury felt a case was proven against Evans but not proven against MacDonald, which might mean they think he's innocent but could simply mean that, because they went back to the hotel together, there wasn't enough evidence to prove MacDonald guilty beyond reasonable doubt. The Criminal Cases Review Commission began its inquiry into this at the start of December 2014. Even the most basic facts are wrong, yet people lap it up to suit their preconceptions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bowie Posted January 5, 2015 Report Share Posted January 5, 2015 What I dont understand is why the sudden issue with Evan's case in particular? There is a precendant set for ex-offenders to return to football. If Evans isnt allowed then I assume others shall be forced out of their clubs? King was allowed to play again, despite the fact he is a grade-A see you next tuesday and has re-offended multiple times Hughes was allowed to play again, he killed a man, fled the scene, denied the charge and is reported to have shown no remorse at all - yet many on here seem to "look out" for FGR results and wish them well (no hypocrisy at all, obviously) Luke McCormack killed two people whilst drink driving - again he is allowed to play with no huge media circus. And outside of football, as already mentioned, Mike Tyson was allowed to continue to box and earn millions. I imagine the majority of people who have signed the petition and are kicking up a fuss have probably watched one of the Hangover films... again, no hypocrisy at all there. I'm sure there are many more examples Agreed, Tyson is a very good example, has made and continue to make millions despite his past. He'll get a club sooner or later and the sooner the better to be honest, the mass hysteria about this is growing tiresome, people who have done worse have continued their careers and so will he sooner or later. Sooner his appeal happens the better for all Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marina's Rolls Royce Posted January 5, 2015 Report Share Posted January 5, 2015 I see the connection between fraud and financial services, between bankruptcy and company offices, and between football violence and football attendance, but I honestly don't see the connection between "rape/ man slaughter/serious assault" and playing football. Maybe I'm missing something but I don't think so. The point I was making was about the FA- if a footballer commits certain violent related crimes- then they get fined and banned for a few games ( like Pardew head butting an opposition player whilst manager of Newcastle). If a fan commits a similar offence at a football match - they are banned for life, potential custodial sentence and may have to surrender their passport at certain times. Both offences are wrong but the FA is , in comparison, lenient with a footballer. As far as I'm aware the FA have never said " this fan has served his time/ban and now should be allowed to continue to support Whoever FC".Whereas they do precisely the opposite for a highly paid football star. It's about double standards. In my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miah Dennehy Posted January 5, 2015 Report Share Posted January 5, 2015 What fascinates me about this whole thing is that if you're convicted of fraud then you can't work in various professions like Law or financial services. If you are made bankrupt- there's loads of restrictions, if you are convicted of smoking pot then same again and may not be able to travel to certain countries and if you wallop a sag- then you get a football banning order/life ban. If you are on the sex register then you can't work with youngsters etc. HoweverI f you're convicted of rape/ man slaughter/serious assault then the FA say OK carry on playing and is supported by PFA . What load of shit. I understand Evans trying to get a new job but the fact that the FA & PFA support the above which the rest of society don't then there's something really really wrong with their standards and are utter hypocrites. Well I am unlikely to punch a fellow Gas, so at least I should be safe from a football banning order, However, I do go to the Cheltenham festival every year, will they let me in? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aizoon Posted January 6, 2015 Report Share Posted January 6, 2015 The point I was making was about the FA- if a footballer commits certain violent related crimes- then they get fined and banned for a few games ( like Pardew head butting an opposition player whilst manager of Newcastle). If a fan commits a similar offence at a football match - they are banned for life, potential custodial sentence and may have to surrender their passport at certain times. Both offences are wrong but the FA is , in comparison, lenient with a footballer. As far as I'm aware the FA have never said " this fan has served his time/ban and now should be allowed to continue to support Whoever FC".Whereas they do precisely the opposite for a highly paid football star. It's about double standards. In my opinion. Has any fan challenged a life ban in court? I'd be interested in the result. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkeh Posted January 6, 2015 Report Share Posted January 6, 2015 Agreed, Tyson is a very good example, has made and continue to make millions despite his past. He'll get a club sooner or later and the sooner the better to be honest, the mass hysteria about this is growing tiresome, people who have done worse have continued their careers and so will he sooner or later. Sooner his appeal happens the better for all He's appealed twice and failed twice Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admin phantom Posted January 6, 2015 Admin Report Share Posted January 6, 2015 Sky sports reporting this morning that they contacted all league 1 and 2 clubs and asked: Would you sign Ched Evans? LEAGUE 2 clubs Yes 0 No 5 No comment 14 No response 5 LEAGUE 1 clubs Talks ongoing 1 Yes 0 No 9 No comment 8 No repsonse 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dollymarie Posted January 6, 2015 Report Share Posted January 6, 2015 Saw this on twitter this morning regarding a comment David Lloyd made @dave_backwell doing the paper review: "no football club should go near #ChedEvans because it sends out the wrong signal." So I think its safe to assume we won't be going anywhere near him thankfully. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WTFiGO!?! Posted January 6, 2015 Report Share Posted January 6, 2015 Sky sports reporting this morning that they contacted all league 1 and 2 clubs and asked: Would you sign Ched Evans? LEAGUE 2 clubs Yes 0 No 5 No comment 14 No response 5 LEAGUE 1 clubs Talks ongoing 1 Yes 0 No 9 No comment 8 No repsonse 6"The only comment I am prepared to make is to inform you that I am making no comment. This is a complete ******* contradiction but it's all you're having. Now piss off". Whereas no response is just plain rude. Although I suspect I'm missing the main point here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admin phantom Posted January 6, 2015 Admin Report Share Posted January 6, 2015 Saw this on twitter this morning regarding a comment David Lloyd made @dave_backwell doing the paper review: "no football club should go near #ChedEvans because it sends out the wrong signal." So I think its safe to assume we won't be going anywhere near him thankfully. Hopefully, but is that not Dave's own opinion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esmond Million's Bung Posted January 6, 2015 Report Share Posted January 6, 2015 Agreed, Tyson is a very good example, has made and continue to make millions despite his past. He'll get a club sooner or later and the sooner the better to be honest, the mass hysteria about this is growing tiresome, people who have done worse have continued their careers and so will he sooner or later. Sooner his appeal happens the better for all The problem is he is going to need a club with deep pockets and very understanding sponsors and fans. His actions since his release have certainly not helped him find a club, IMO he is being badly advised and appears to be to dull to see it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bat Fastard Posted January 6, 2015 Report Share Posted January 6, 2015 My wife knew nothing about this case and so looked up the case on the internet and has examined original official evidence and other documents and has come to the conclusion that there are question marks over the conduct and conclusions of the original verdict and that there has probably been a miscarriage of justice. Clearly Ched feels the same and he is probably making the mistake that the legal system dispenses justice. As far as I can understand it, he was turned down leave to appeal and that no second trial has taken place. He is in a terrible position that denies him a fair hearing but condemns him out of hand. Maybe we should all cut him some slack until a further trial has actually happened. The evidence that freed his friend from the same charge should have freed him as well. Maybe others on here could read the details of the case before jumping to conclusions based upon sensational reporting........of course, that does not mean that he is not guilty, we will only know after a proper appeal hearing. That would be justice! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redcityman Posted January 6, 2015 Report Share Posted January 6, 2015 A fair hearing! So do we just keep going on with retrials until the desired result is given, what I don't get is what is so hard to understand, he turned up after receiving a text, he never arrived with the girl in question, he has been turned down twice now for a retrial, he was found guilty by a jury of twelve people who heard ALL the evidence not just snippets off the internet and hearsay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dolman Pragmatist Posted January 6, 2015 Report Share Posted January 6, 2015 My wife knew nothing about this case and so looked up the case on the internet and has examined original official evidence and other documents and has come to the conclusion that there are question marks over the conduct and conclusions of the original verdict and that there has probably been a miscarriage of justice. Clearly Ched feels the same and he is probably making the mistake that the legal system dispenses justice. As far as I can understand it, he was turned down leave to appeal and that no second trial has taken place. He is in a terrible position that denies him a fair hearing but condemns him out of hand. Maybe we should all cut him some slack until a further trial has actually happened. The evidence that freed his friend from the same charge should have freed him as well. Maybe others on here could read the details of the case before jumping to conclusions based upon sensational reporting........of course, that does not mean that he is not guilty, we will only know after a proper appeal hearing. That would be justice! Is your wife a lawyer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bat Fastard Posted January 6, 2015 Report Share Posted January 6, 2015 A fair hearing! So do we just keep going on with retrials until the desired result is given, what I don't get is what is so hard to understand, he turned up after receiving a text, he never arrived with the girl in question, he has been turned down twice now for a retrial, he was found guilty by a jury of twelve people who heard ALL the evidence not just snippets off the internet and hearsay. He has not had an appeal heard and there is a lot that you have missed out. It really is not that simple. The victim was fully awake and apparently directing matters and did not even complain about a rape to the police afterwards - they thought that it was like the Titus Bramble case where drink spiking was alleged - although blood tests showed that this had not happened. I don't really give a fig about Ched Evans, but he is still trying to clear his name after he has served the prison part of his sentence. It seems likely that there has been a miscarriage of justice and it needs to be re-heard so that there is no doubt left to all concerned. It has been fast tracked for a review but a retrial might still take a further year or so to be heard. Maybe he should not be blackballed until after the case has been re-heard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bat Fastard Posted January 6, 2015 Report Share Posted January 6, 2015 Is your wife a lawyer? No - but she has spent a great deal of time making investigations and she keeps reading bits out to me. It really is a bit of a pain in the arse but I have to admit that, from what I have heard, he has good cause to feel that he has been unfairly treated. It does not bother me one way or another because the whole episode is pretty shabby anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samo II Posted January 6, 2015 Report Share Posted January 6, 2015 A fair hearing! So do we just keep going on with retrials until the desired result is given, what I don't get is what is so hard to understand, he turned up after receiving a text, he never arrived with the girl in question, he has been turned down twice now for a retrial, he was found guilty by a jury of twelve people who heard ALL the evidence not just snippets off the internet and hearsay. Exactly. People are essentially saying they don't think he's guilty, therefore the justice system must be broken, because how could their perception be wrong? Would be hilarious position to hold, if it wasn't so disturbing. He's guilty, and until his (third) appeal is heard (and most likely after it too), that is an undisputed fact, regardless of the propaganda he liberally spreads via any means his wealth can buy him. If you're sticking up for him, you're sticking up for a rapist. Whatever your reasons for doing so, take into account you are condoning his conduct, which however you slice it was pretty grim regardless of crime, and certainly not the sort of stuff I personally think is defendable; footballer or no. Whether he should play football or not; could give a flying. But the fact every time I log on here to look at news and view about my beloved City I have to see a thread about a convicted rapist signing for some other club is getting on my nerves; can't we bump this to news of something? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admin phantom Posted January 6, 2015 Admin Report Share Posted January 6, 2015 No - but she has spent a great deal of time making investigations and she keeps reading bits out to me. I'm confused - what does that mean? Are you saying your wife see's something differently to the oringal case and the two subsequent appeals ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkeh Posted January 6, 2015 Report Share Posted January 6, 2015 I'm confused - what does that mean? Are you saying your wife see's something differently to the oringal case and the two subsequent appeals ? as well as the jury and some judges....... Maybe she should join the legal trade Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bat Fastard Posted January 6, 2015 Report Share Posted January 6, 2015 I'm confused - what does that mean? Are you saying your wife see's something differently to the oringal case and the two subsequent appeals ? No she hasn't - he is going through the appeals process as is his right - there has not been a retrial. If you want to know more - ask her because I am getting pissed off with this!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esmond Million's Bung Posted January 6, 2015 Report Share Posted January 6, 2015 No she hasn't - he is going through the appeals process as is his right - there has not been a retrial. If you want to know more - ask her because I am getting pissed off with this!! Do you live in St Mary Mead?. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gasbuster Posted January 6, 2015 Report Share Posted January 6, 2015 Exactly. People are essentially saying they don't think he's guilty, therefore the justice system must be broken, because how could their perception be wrong? Would be hilarious position to hold, if it wasn't so disturbing. He's guilty, and until his (third) appeal is heard (and most likely after it too), that is an undisputed fact, regardless of the propaganda he liberally spreads via any means his wealth can buy him. If you're sticking up for him, you're sticking up for a rapist. Whatever your reasons for doing so, take into account you are condoning his conduct, which however you slice it was pretty grim regardless of crime, and certainly not the sort of stuff I personally think is defendable; footballer or no.Whether he should play football or not; could give a flying. But the fact every time I log on here to look at news and view about my beloved City I have to see a thread about a convicted rapist signing for some other club is getting on my nerves; can't we bump this to news of something? Very well put !! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bat Fastard Posted January 6, 2015 Report Share Posted January 6, 2015 Do you live in St Mary Mead?. No - but I wish she would go and live there!! She has always been a fan of Lady Jane! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dollymarie Posted January 6, 2015 Report Share Posted January 6, 2015 No she hasn't - he is going through the appeals process as is his right - there has not been a retrial. If you want to know more - ask her because I am getting pissed off with this!! Its his 3rd appeal, he has had 2 attempts at appeals turned down already and is now appealing that for the 3rd time. In August 2012, Evans was refused leave to appeal against the conviction, and he appealed to the Court of Appeal for England and Wales. This decision was upheld by the Court of Appeal in London in November. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 6, 2015 Report Share Posted January 6, 2015 Its his 3rd appeal, he has had 2 attempts at appeals turned down already and is now appealing that for the 3rd time. It is worth pointing out, just in the balance of fairness to 'he's had three appeals', you can only get leave to appeal if there has been a case of improper judicial process, new evidence or misapplication of law. In the absence of proving this, leave will be refused irrespective of the decision of the jury. Whilst he may have had leave to appeal refused twice that is by absolutely no means whatsoever the courts ratifying the decision of the jury. The decision of a jury, a decision of fact, is not something which is appealable or called in to question. In principle there can very simply, easily be a total miscarriage of justice which, in the light of no new evidence, is completely unappealable. The fact that he has been refused leave to appeal is not determinative. I am only saying this in the balance of fairness. I hold my hands up I did not follow this closely and so have not formed my own opinion in any way shape or form. The only opinion I have formed is that I believe he should be free to carry on his chosen vocation if someone offers him such a role. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bat Fastard Posted January 6, 2015 Report Share Posted January 6, 2015 Its his 3rd appeal, he has had 2 attempts at appeals turned down already and is now appealing that for the 3rd time. As far as I am concerned they can hang him! BUT he is allowed under the Justice system to go through the whole appeals process - he has rights as well as the victim. Having your right to appeal being turned down twice is not quite the same thing as having a new hearing. It would be "interesting" if he was eventually found not guilty because he would have missed four years of his valuable career by that time. Probably serves him right according to some opinions, but I would like to see the whole process completed before he is damaged further. If he loses an appeal hearing (rather than losing the right to go to an appeal hearing) then we would all have to assume that the eventual verdict was safer. If it confirms the original verdict then he should be rightly abused by the public. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 6, 2015 Report Share Posted January 6, 2015 As far as I am concerned they can hang him! BUT he is allowed under the Justice system to go through the whole appeals process - he has rights as well as the victim. Having your right to appeal being turned down twice is not quite the same thing as having a new hearing. It would be "interesting" if he was eventually found not guilty because he would have missed four years of his valuable career by that time. Probably serves him right according to some opinions, but I would like to see the whole process completed before he is damaged further. If he loses an appeal hearing (rather than losing the right to go to an appeal hearing) then we would all have to assume that the eventual verdict was safer. If it confirms the original verdict then he should be rightly abused by the public. There seems to be a big misunderstanding of the appeals process on this board. His first request for leave to appeal (not an appeal!!!) was reviewed by a single judge. This is a paper based exercise with no oral hearing. That judge will be reading the papers for the grounds which give rise to leave to appeal (as posted above). The judge will look at it from two angles, was there an error of law and if so is it likely that the conviction would be quashed as unsafe. If he answers no to any of those questions leave to appeal would be refused. The second appeal is then actually an appeal against the refusal of leave to appeal. In both cases the judges are looking for an error in application of the law, admission of inadmissable evidence, misidrection from the judge - that sort of thing. At no point is the decision of the jury called in to question. If Evans won leave to appeal it is extremely extremely unlikely that new evidence in relation to the case would be admitted. That hearing would solely surround a) what was the misapplication of law and b) would that have been a prominant factor in the decision of the jury such that the conviction is unsafe. An appeal hearing is in no way whatsoever about retrying the case and revisiting all of the evidence and arriving at a decision. It is merely was there misapplication of the law which meant there was no fair trial. The fact he has been refused leave to appeal in no way validates the decision that was arrived at. It just validates the trial and process. If he does get leave for appeal and loses equally this in no way validates the decision of the jury. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richwwtk Posted January 6, 2015 Report Share Posted January 6, 2015 He has been convicted and served his sentence, whether or not he is actually guilty is irrelevant to this argument, it has to be assumed that he is indeed guilty and unremorseful until proved otherwise. He has every right to continue his life and a career once more, but a career as a professional footballer should be out of the question due to the public profile and supposed 'role model' of the position. Let him get on with his life in any profession he chooses, a normal job like the rest of us, but not one that is lived in the public eye. Being a highly paid professional footballer should be regarded as a privilege, a privilege that he has now lost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.