Ched Evans

[REDOXO]

8 minutes ago, EnderMB said:

The only thing we can do is trust the legal process. He was charged for rape, so my personal thoughts on the evidence mean very little. The law states he is a rapist.

If his appeal is successful and he is found not guilty in a new trial, then the law states he is not a rapist, and he should be allowed to continue to play football.

I agree. Kind of!

The FA or UEFA have not stated the player can not play. The issue is clubs do not want to be associated with the kind of publicity that Evans brings. The sponsors of multiple clubs (I believe LJ made representations to have the player at Oldham) have the last say. If RSG for example state they will withdraw their sponsorship in the event (unlikely) that City were interested then the club will back off. This seems to be the issue. Also being on parole stops the player from going abroad.

If the guy has had his conviction quashed pending a retrial clubs may take a different view, however if the retrial goes forward how many clubs will want to be associated with what has become a toxic issue. Nevertheless the authorities have not stated he cant play as far as I am aware and to be frank don't need to in this case!

 

[LegionOfBrad]

There is nothing legally to stop him playing. There wasn't after he was released either. The clubs won't touch him with a bargepole until he is cleared at retrial. At which point someone will hire him. And there can't really be any objection to an innocent man not facing trial being played by a club.

If he is guilty at the trial he'll probably go abroad after his license conditions end in 2017. He could probably make a decent wage in China.

[REDOXO]

1 minute ago, Thatch35 said:

LJ going to try and sign him again? 

Some might Boo!

 

[And Its Smith]

12 minutes ago, Thatch35 said:

LJ going to try and sign him again? 

Did LJ try to sign him before?  Thought the board did

[PHILINFRANCE]

As I recall, LJ was uncomfortable, even embarrassed at the thought of CE signing.

He conducted himself extremely well in numerous media interviews, alluding to the fact he was 'just' the manager and would follow the board's recommendations.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, EnderMB said:

The only thing we can do is trust the legal process. He was charged for rape, so my personal thoughts on the evidence mean very little. The law states he is a rapist.

If his appeal is successful and he is found not guilty in a new trial, then the law states he is not a rapist, and he should be allowed to continue to play football.

Innocence until proven guilty out the window then? He was found guilty and that finding has been set quashd so the presumption of innocence exists.

[EnderMB]

18 hours ago, REDOXO said:

I agree. Kind of!

The FA or UEFA have not stated the player can not play. The issue is clubs do not want to be associated with the kind of publicity that Evans brings. The sponsors of multiple clubs (I believe LJ made representations to have the player at Oldham) have the last say. If RSG for example state they will withdraw their sponsorship in the event (unlikely) that City were interested then the club will back off. This seems to be the issue. Also being on parole stops the player from going abroad.

If the guy has had his conviction quashed pending a retrial clubs may take a different view, however if the retrial goes forward how many clubs will want to be associated with what has become a toxic issue. Nevertheless the authorities have not stated he cant play as far as I am aware and to be frank don't need to in this case!

 

Legally, he can play, but this is where I disagree with the FA. I think that if a player is a part of a criminal trial then they should be barred from making appearances, within reason. Ched Evans should be allowed to sign for a club, but not cleared to play in the league until his name is cleared. This allows a club to let him train in preparation for the end of his trial, and to introduce him back into football right away.

[Silvio Dante]

Signing for Chesterfield per BBC

[Super]

Chesterfield fans not happy.

[nebristolred]

As it stands he is innocent. Would have waited until the retrial personally but if he's found not guilty then this is absolutely fair enough as far as I'm concerned.

[phantom]

Very sticky subject this one.

After all the fall out at Sheffield Utd big call by Chesterfield.

Personally I wouldn't be comfortable with him joining us, but as @nebristolred says above, in the eyes of the law he is innocent as his sentance was quashed

[RedorDead BCFC]

56 minutes ago, phantom said:

Very sticky subject this one.

After all the fall out at Sheffield Utd big call by Chesterfield.

Personally I wouldn't be comfortable with him joining us, but as @nebristolred says above, in the eyes of the law he is innocent as his sentance was quashed

Surely he's been out the game so long now I don't think he will be the player he was. 

But if he is found innocent and regains his form then Chesterfield could then cash in on him.  

[Former Pirate]

1 hour ago, nebristolred said:

As it stands he is innocent. Would have waited until the retrial personally but if he's found not guilty then this is absolutely fair enough as far as I'm concerned.

Agreed. I wouldn't have signed him personally but that's more down to him not having kicked a ball for 4yrs, and also the potential for conviction in October.

As far as the original trial is concerned, however, I have no issues with employing him. I do think his family are scum for the way they attacked the 'victim' though.

The sad truth of this though is that only two people know the truth, and one of them will be feeling absolutely horrified, either that they've been wrongly accused of one of the worst crimes imaginable, or that they've been raped and their attacker has been 'let off' in the eyes of many. An awful charade.

Many things leave a sour taste about it and I don't expect him to be found guilty again personally.

[Fordy62]

11 minutes ago, Fordingbridge Pirate said:

Agreed. I wouldn't have signed him personally but that's more down to him not having kicked a ball for 4yrs, and also the potential for conviction in October.

As far as the original trial is concerned, however, I have no issues with employing him. I do think his family are scum for the way they attacked the 'victim' though.

The sad truth of this though is that only two people know the truth, and one of them will be feeling absolutely horrified, either that they've been wrongly accused of one of the worst crimes imaginable, or that they've been raped and their attacker has been 'let off' in the eyes of many. An awful charade.

Many things leave a sour taste about it and I don't expect him to be found guilty again personally.

I think only one person knows what went on. 

Well, maybe two if you include his team mate. 

[Spoons]

In this country we have a democracy and a justice system which is the envy of the world, it is obviously not perfect but it's a system which works.

we are also innocent until proven guilty and at the moment ched Evans has been cleared of convictions and now awaits re trial in October. So we all have our opinions but he is a free man like the rest of us and until proven otherwise he is free to seek employment like the rest of us. In October this could change after his re trial but let's all just let the justice system work it's cause. 

[PHILINFRANCE]

31 minutes ago, Fordy62 said:

I think only one person knows what went on. 

Well, maybe two if you include his team mate. 

Interesting.

Obviously CE and his teammate 'know what went on', but you seem quite sure that Miss X was so completely out of it that she had no idea what, and with whom, she was doing.

Hopefully, all will be revealed at the new trial.  

[cityexile]

10 minutes ago, PHILINFRANCE said:

Interesting.

Obviously CE and his teammate 'know what went on', but you seem quite sure that Miss X was so completely out of it that she had no idea what, and with whom, she was doing.

Hopefully, all will be revealed at the new trial.  

There is part of me wondering if this will get to trial. Will the women concerned want to go through a trail again? As others have said, best to wait and see on this one I guess.

[Fordy62]

14 minutes ago, PHILINFRANCE said:

Interesting.

Obviously CE and his teammate 'know what went on', but you seem quite sure that Miss X was so completely out of it that she had no idea what, and with whom, she was doing.

Hopefully, all will be revealed at the new trial.  

Well, that was the basis of the prosecution case and I can't imagine that will change because if it were to change (which it won't) then there wouldn't even be a retrial because you can't just go changing your evidence!

Evans was convicted on the basis that he wouldn't reasonably have believed that she would have consented to sexual intercourse.

[PHILINFRANCE]

7 minutes ago, Fordy62 said:

Well, that was the basis of the prosecution case and I can't imagine that will change because if it were to change (which it won't) then there wouldn't even be a retrial because you can't just go changing your evidence!

Evans was convicted on the basis that he wouldn't reasonably have believed that she would have consented to sexual intercourse.

But isn't the whole reason for the retrial based on the 'fact?' that Miss X wasn't quite as 'out of it' as she claimed, and that CE's legal team have evidence to prove same, evidence that, for whatever reason, was not disclosed previously?

[Fordy62]

22 minutes ago, PHILINFRANCE said:

But isn't the whole reason for the retrial based on the 'fact?' that Miss X wasn't quite as 'out of it' as she claimed, and that CE's legal team have evidence to prove same, evidence that, for whatever reason, was not disclosed previously?

Oh, is it? Pass. No idea. 

interesting. 

[Guest]

Just because his conviction has been quashed, does not make him innocent. That will be determined in the new trial - trials proceed on the assumption of innocence, this does not mean he is.

And even on the verdict... they don't pronounce 'innocence'... it's 'not guilty' i.e. with the available evidence, it's not possible to convict.

[EmersonsRed]

Innocent until proven guilty.

[TBW]

Good luck to him (for now - innocent until proven otherwise.)

Always felt the case was weak.

[Stephen Lewis]

6 hours ago, Spoons said:

In this country we have a democracy and a justice system which is the envy of the world, it is obviously not perfect but it's a system which works.

 

If you say so your honour.

[phantom]

17 hours ago, Spoons said:

In this country we have a democracy and a justice system which is the envy of the world, it is obviously not perfect but it's a system which works.

Most, but sadly not all of the time - but get your point

[Kingswood Robin]

16 hours ago, bcfcfinker said:

Just because his conviction has been quashed, does not make him innocent. That will be determined in the new trial - trials proceed on the assumption of innocence, this does not mean he is.

And even on the verdict... they don't pronounce 'innocence'... it's 'not guilty' i.e. with the available evidence, it's not possible to convict.

That's for the CPS to decide before it even goes to court. His conviction has been quashed and he is therefore currently innocent, what can he be guilty of?

How else does someone show their innocence other than being found not guilty? Is there some other place they can go to be to be declared innocent? 

The Judge often provides a commentary to go with the verdict. From memory, John Leslie was told that he can leave the court without a stain on his character, or words to that effect.

This is a sorry story indeed, I just hope the legal process is followed correctly and gets to the truth, whatever that may be. In the meantime, I think it unfair stop someone earning a living based on something they may or may not a have done.

[BRISTOL86]

17 hours ago, bcfcfinker said:

Just because his conviction has been quashed, does not make him innocent. That will be determined in the new trial - trials proceed on the assumption of innocence, this does not mean he is.

Contradicting yourself here, surely. 

He's either guilty or not guilty at any given point in time. 

Until his conviction was quashed he was guilty. He's now not guilty, up until such point that he is found guilty at a trial. 

So in my eyes has every right to pursue his employment as he has - at this point - not been found guilty of a crime? 

[EnderMB]

Since this was last brought up, he's now been made innocent.

However, he's still awaiting trial for rape, and although he should be considered innocent until proven guilty I think allowing people under criminal investigation to play is dangerous. If I were in charge of the FA, I would make it so that any player currently under police investigation should not be allowed to play in a league match.

I see nothing wrong with Chesterfield offering him a contract. If anything, it's good footballing sense. Ched Evans is a solid footballer, and if he's kept himself fit over the past four years he might get 20 goals next season. I'm willing to bet Chesterfield fans aren't too happy with this, but if we can't trust in the law then what can we possibly trust?

This whole ordeal has been a shambles, and is a prime example of how we need to rethink how we handle cases like these.

[Guest]

5 hours ago, Kingswood Robin said:

That's for the CPS to decide before it even goes to court. His conviction has been quashed and he is therefore currently innocent, what can he be guilty of?

How else does someone show their innocence other than being found not guilty? Is there some other place they can go to be to be declared innocent? 

The Judge often provides a commentary to go with the verdict. From memory, John Leslie was told that he can leave the court without a stain on his character, or words to that effect.

This is a sorry story indeed, I just hope the legal process is followed correctly and gets to the truth, whatever that may be. In the meantime, I think it unfair stop someone earning a living based on something they may or may not a have done.

 

4 hours ago, BRISTOL86 said:

Contradicting yourself here, surely. 

He's either guilty or not guilty at any given point in time. 

Until his conviction was quashed he was guilty. He's now not guilty, up until such point that he is found guilty at a trial. 

So in my eyes has every right to pursue his employment as he has - at this point - not been found guilty of a crime? 

I didn't say anything about him getting a job, because I agree, he should be allowed to get a job in his chosen career path, guilty or not (football is not a restricted career and I don't subscribe to some peoples notions of 'it shouldn't be allowed' - I certainly don't want him on the dole at the tax payers expense) - he's done his time, he should be allowed to get on with his life.

As to 'not guilty' and 'innocence'.
Let's start with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence
So we start with the presumption that someone is innocent - this does not mean they are actually innocent.
It is up to the prosecution to prove otherwise (beyond reasonable doubt).
Now if you think that everyone who has ever been given a 'not guilty' during a trial is actually 'innocent', then carry on.
However, as I understand it, the UK justice system no longer has a double jeopardy principle for serious crime so this does tend to indicate that 'not guilty' does not mean 'innocent' - it's just 'not proven'. If compelling evidence comes to light later, then its possible for the prosecution to appeal a 'not guilty' verdict - so it appears that I have not contradicted myself.

It is possible that Ched Evans will be found guilty all over again OR he might be found not guilty. If he's found guilty again, he destroys his reputation a second time around. If he's found not guilty, there will be people who still won't believe he's 'innocent', it's a behavioural trait within some people.

Ched's case demonstrates that you can no longer get your leg over with a person who is pissed because the law now says that consent is not possible (I don't do law, this is how I understand it). In Ched's original case, the girl indicated that she does not remember what happened, so there was no real evidence. However, it appears that Ched gave a statement about what happened and incriminated himself along the way. If he had kept his mouth shut and left it to his defence to say 'prove it', we'd not be discussing it on the OTIB board. If you look at what was said during his original case (along with all the lurid red top sensationalism), what took place was seedy at best. At worst, a crime did take place. Either way, Ched did not cover himself in glory.

[phantom]

Back in court today, with the latest trial expected to take up to two weeks, maybe once and for all this can be concluded now !

Evans suffered a heel injury last month, and the Mirror reports that he will not return to the first team fold until after the conclusion of the trial, which begins on Tuesday October 4 and is expected to last two weeks.

Reasons for the new trial being ordered cannot be made public until the conclusion of proceedings, as per a statement made in court by Lady Justice Hallett.

'Nothing can be reported that might prejudice the fairness of that re-trial. That means the contents of this statement may be reported and broadcast, in full, but nothing more about the appeal proceedings may be reported until the re-trial is concluded,' the statement reads.