• The forums will be unavailable for a few hours on Saturday 6th June, when they do return they will initially be in a degraded state with some features missing, but normal posting/reading will be possible. The main website will not be affected by these updates.
    New user registrations are currently disabled.
    Some other features of the forum are also currently disabled.

Ched Evans...

Status
Not open for further replies.
Some bizarre opinions on this thread, he was found not guilty, anyone holding a false conviction against him needs to give their head a shake.

If he is the best striker we can get over the line then we should get him and get behind him.
 

The Cabbage said:
My own personal opinion of the evidence is that I would have convicted had I been in the jury - even after retrial. Just because a jury of my peers found they couldn’t convict doesn’t mean I have to treat him like he did nowt wrong. Glad he’ll never play for Safc tbh.
Click to expand...
Good job you weren't on the jury then :)
 
Perryqhill said:
And that's why he was initially locked up. They had decided she was incapable of giving consent especially given prior evidence when she was splatted on the floor outside a pizza shop, so they looked to each individual who slept with her and their actions to suggest they'd went to reasonable lengths to think they had consent. Evan's mate had chatted with her, been in a queue with here and went back in a taxi with her. Evans turned up when she was getting rattled and basically got straight in. They initially concluded he hadn't done enough to assume he had consent.

I'm not aware of what happened or what new evidence was provided in the retrial and how he got off, maybe he had done more, maybe they just threw more money at it and found some technicalities - I've no idea. But his actions that night in both the lead up to sleeping with her and leaving the hotel were pretty poor and as we saw with the campaign afterwards and the things coming out of the Evans camp and centering on the girl when she shouldn't have been named, this is one we really should stay clear of. We just don't need the baggage or the negativity it brings.
Click to expand...
I’m not doubting they’ll be grumblings but the point is he’s been cleared and having read the account of things which is linked on this thread I can see why.

This sort of thing will happen all the time, it’s nothing new. If it’s a footballer though there’s a chance to make a quick buck (pardon the pun) and some will grab it with both hands.

She was game enough to jump in a taxi to go back to a hotel with a bloke she’d just met so I hardly think she’s going to be Mary poppins.
 
Reiver said:
You spelled 'abiding by the British judicial system' wrong there mate ;)
Click to expand...
No marra. You still haven’t read the article I posted have you? Anyone who says he is innocent is wrong. That is a fact. Anyone who says she lied is wrong. That is also a fact. It is also a fact that they couldn’t find him guilt at the second trial. None of those facts preclude him being a dirty bastard. And none of them prove that he didn’t do what they said he did. I’m very glad that he’ll never play for Sunderland.
 
Fact Hunt said:
So you think it was okay to do what he did? Speakes volumes of you.
Click to expand...

What do you mean? You want me to judge if him not committing a crime is OK? You think we should be judging all our players on their sexual morals? How will this happen, some sort of questionairre when they do their medical?

Q1: Have you ever had a one night stand with a drunken bird in a hotel room?

If yes then fuck off we are not signing you. Bizarre!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top