Ched Evans moved?????

Goldstone1976 · Oct 15, 2016

Tooting Gull said:
I think this is the NSC position outlined pretty accurately, and you can fully understand where Bozza/mods are coming from.

The one thing I would say, that this is missing, is that you it would be really good if one or more of the mods knew a bit more about libel.

The obvious reason for saying that is if you don't, you always 'play safe' and everything, even important stuff that might be the right side of the line, never sees the light of day and you get a very sanitised debate. If NSC had been around at the time of Belotti and Archer, this approach would have meant virtually none of the criticisms and concerns would have been aired.

It is not a criticism, just something to think about because the same is true of critical threads concerning the club, we don't want to get rid of everything that upsets Paul Barber, but we don't want genuine law suits. It's a balancing act.

You make an excellent observation; one that is discussed from time to time in mod towers. We too don't want too sanitised a debate on NSC, especially when it comes to criticising the club. Not all threads that criticise the club are moderated aggressively (in fact, few are). For example, I doubt PB is best pleased with the recent threads/polls taking the piss about the language and sentiments expressed in this week's club pronouncements, and, to my knowledge, there has been no thought about moderating them.

Where it's trickier is where individuals at the club are pilloried (e.g. the whole Gus saga), and where there are active/recent Court cases where Court Orders are in place (e.g. Ched Evans).

It is exactly a balancing act, as you say, and in the absence of a Libel QC in the mod ranks, it's hard to see us taking too many risks. There's always Twitter!

Tom Hark Preston Park · Oct 15, 2016

Honky Tonx said:
I hope all of those who laid into Ched Evans now have the balls and decency to stand up and apologise.

Kidding aren't you?

Complete and utter SLIMEBALL.

drew · Oct 15, 2016

Uncle Spielberg said:
Tell that to all the BBC reporters yesterday then who all referred to him as being found Innocent, anyway not guilty is innocent to me and most other people I would think

Afraid I don't agree. Yes, in the eyes of the law, you are always innocent until proven guilty so that puts the onus on the state to have enough evidence to convict beyond reasonable doubt. In a civil case the burden of proof is considerably less, ie greater than 50% chance. If you look at the case of OJ Simpson, the state couldn't prove beyond reasonable doubt that he murdered his ex wife and her friend but a civil court ruled that he was guilty of their 'wrongful death'.

The fact is that if you commit an act, you are guilty of doing so whether you are caught or not. If you kill someone, you are guilty of committing murder or manslaughter but it is then up to the state to catch you and convict you so that you are also guilty in the eyes of the law.

Thunder Bolt · Oct 15, 2016

Tom Hark said:
Kidding aren't you?

Complete and utter SLIMEBALL.

That's as maybe, but he isn't a convicted rapist. There were people preventing him trying to work by saying they didn't want a convicted rapist at their club, which is understandable. He always said he had sex with the girl, so wasn't hiding anything, but was determined to prove he didn't rape her.
After having served his time, and got a job at Chesterfield, he could've left it, but was still determined to clear his name.

Thunder Bolt · Oct 15, 2016

drew said:
Absolute joke of an article. Tarring the whole of football with the actions of a minority. That coming from someone who's colleagues paid to hack the phone of a dead girl. Perhaps we should think of all journalists as lowlife like that. As for the comment about the PFA teams he wasn't convicted until 20th April that is certainly long after ballot papers were returned (the ceremony was only 2 days later). The vote is not by the PFA but by fellow professionals!

I agree. It does't mention that girls often throw themselves at rich footballers, who must find it hard to resist temptations, if they do.

A colleague of my daughter, encountered David Ginola, and having admired him for some time, she approached him for a photo. He turned round and snapped at her, 'you just want to **** me, don't you'. The girl just walked away embarrassed and disillusioned, as she genuinely just wanted a photo.

Tooting Gull · Oct 15, 2016

On the legal side, I was most interested in the judge ruling that this little-used law concerning witnesses testifying about the complainant's previous sexual behaviour was justified in this trial.

I'm no expert but aren't I right in saying that previous murders/convictions by the defendant cannot usually be raised in murder trials? Looking at the Evans trial, you'd have to now ask 'Why not?'

drew · Oct 15, 2016

Thunder Bolt said:
That's as maybe, but he isn't a convicted rapist. There were people preventing him trying to work by saying they didn't want a convicted rapist at their club, which is understandable. He always said he had sex with the girl, so wasn't hiding anything, but was determined to prove he didn't rape her.
After having served his time, and got a job at Chesterfield, he could've left it, but was still determined to clear his name.

He needed to clear his name because a) presumably he believed he was innocent so that's reason enough. And b) he only knows football and whilst he will never probably cut it in the premiership, who could earn a decent living in the championship for the last 7 or 8 years of his career. However, with the conviction hanging over him I doubt any decent club would employ him. Now, that stigma has been lifted more clubs might be willing to sign him without facing the wrath of their fans although I hope he doesn't come near the Albion (not that I think he's good enough for us anyway).

And let's be honest, anyone in his shoes, irrespective or what you could earn, would want to clear your name if you knew you were innocent. He had the good fortune to have a wealthy backer for his legal team thanks to his forgiving fiance.

Thunder Bolt · Oct 15, 2016

Tooting Gull said:
On the legal side, I was most interested in the judge ruling that this little-used law concerning witnesses testifying about the complainant's previous sexual behaviour was justified in this trial.

I'm no expert but aren't I right in saying that previous murders/convictions by the defendant cannot usually be raised in murder trials? Looking at the Evans trial, you'd have to now ask 'Why not?'

Read the link on post 24. The secret barrister explains why it was allowed in this case. It hinged on whether the complainant consented. Witnesses came forward to say she had used exactly the same words with them as Evans said she had said to him.

Tom Hark Preston Park · Oct 15, 2016

Thunder Bolt said:
That's as maybe, but he isn't a convicted rapist.

Never said he was. I'm talking about his character, or rather lack of same. Vile person. This is from this morning's Guardian:

'In court, Evans admitted that he lied to get the key for the hotel room and did not speak to the woman before, during or after sex. He left via a fire exit. It also emerged that Evans’s younger brother and another man were trying to film what was happening from outside the room.'

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2016/oct/14/footballer-ched-evans-cleared-of-in-retrial

mothy · Oct 15, 2016

Can we sign him

Thunder Bolt · Oct 15, 2016

Tom Hark said:
Never said he was. I'm talking about his character, or rather lack of same. Vile person. This is from this morning's Guardian:

'In court, Evans admitted that he lied to get the key for the hotel room and did not speak to the woman before, during or after sex. He left via a fire exit. It also emerged that Evans’s younger brother and another man were trying to film what was happening from outside the room.'

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2016/oct/14/footballer-ched-evans-cleared-of-in-retrial

I agree his character leaves a lot to be desired.

Tooting Gull · Oct 15, 2016

Thunder Bolt said:
Read the link on post 24. The secret barrister explains why it was allowed in this case. It hinged on whether the complainant consented. Witnesses came forward to say she had used exactly the same words with them as Evans said she had said to him.

No, I get that. But if the 'special circumstances' were allowed in this case by the judge for prior behaviour, presumably that could extend logically to murder trials where the defendant had prior convictions? It must be every murder trial juror's worst nightmare that they acquit a 50/50 defendant only to find out he/she has done it before.

But in both cases obviously the counter-argument, and usual practice, is ensuring a fair trial without prejudice. Be in no doubt, the testimony of these new witnesses would have played a major part in this acquittal, that's why they fought so hard to have them heard.

Honky Tonx · Oct 15, 2016

Certainly not kidding. He was found not guilty. If you don't wish to apologise that's up to you Tom Hark, but he has been found not guilty so he has no case to answer. However loutish and unsavoury his behaviour, he has been found not guilty so we have to accept it. His morals and character were never on trial. Please don't think that I'm supporting or making excuses for his behaviour, I certainly would not behave or want any friend of mine to behave in such a way. May be before anyone has sex a Form of consent should be signed stating that all parties involved agree to have sex outlining what acts they are willing to participate in. if that was the case I think I would have either fallen asleep or lost interest.

Sussex Nomad · Oct 15, 2016

Thunder Bolt said:
I agree. It does't mention that girls often throw themselves at rich footballers, who must find it hard to resist temptations, if they do.

A colleague of my daughter, encountered David Ginola, and having admired him for some time, she approached him for a photo. He turned round and snapped at her, 'you just want to **** me, don't you'. The girl just walked away embarrassed and disillusioned, as she genuinely just wanted a photo.

About 20 years ago I was in an audience that had Jeremy Clarkson doing the main presentation. Afterwards I managed to catch up with him and have a beer or two. It was at the NSC in Birmingham which has a hotel that he was staying at, as were many in the audience. In the time I was chatting to him I reckon about 5 or 6 females had put pieces of paper into his hand with their hotel numbers on. I know this because he showed me. I asked him how he dealt with it. He said something like it had been going on for so many years that it just went straight over his head. I was also a little jealous being still quite youngish! And yeah I know in later life his relationship with his Mrs broke down, but that isn't the point I'm making. There are people (not just women) that will literally drop anything to shag someone famous.

knocky1 · Oct 15, 2016

mothy said:
Can we sign him

No good, if we are a goal down. Although he plays a dogged position, he may think of his girlfriend and not be able to come from behind.

Dick Head · Oct 15, 2016

Uncle Spielberg said:
Did you read what I said ?

Yes, you said that he'd been found innocent.

Triggaaar · Oct 15, 2016

Honky Tonx said:
I hope all of those who laid into Ched Evans now have the balls and decency to stand up and apologise.

Nah, they're not the type of people to admit they were wrong. I never saw a drop of evidence that she was raped in the original trial, but that didn't stop people jumping up and down and gleefully screaming 'rapist!'

Although the case required proof beyond reasonable doubt, I actually think it's very unlikely that she was raped. IMO, that's good news for the complainant. I'd rather be someone that wasn't raped than someone who was. It's nothing like a case where a woman knows full well she was raped, but the prosecution has been unable to prove it.

Tooting Gull said:
On the legal side, I was most interested in the judge ruling that this little-used law concerning witnesses testifying about the complainant's previous sexual behaviour was justified in this trial.

I'm no expert but aren't I right in saying that previous murders/convictions by the defendant cannot usually be raised in murder trials? Looking at the Evans trial, you'd have to now ask 'Why not?'

No. It's obviously fundamental that people (read women) can have consensual sex whenever they want, and still be able to say know when they want, without their history of putting it about being used against them. The witnesses in this case were not their to suggest that she puts it about, but highlight a couple of other points - she could forget things after being drunk and having sex, and also shed light on whether McDonald and Evans's claim of her saying '**** me harder' were likely to be made up or not.

Personally, I think that would be a weird thing to make up if they had raped a woman who was totally out of it.

Triggaaar · Oct 15, 2016

Eggmundo said:
Very interesting read (nothing libellous or defamatory - Just a straight forward explanation of how the verdict was reached):

https://thesecretbarrister.com/2016/10/14/10-myths-busted-about-the-ched-evans-case/

He says in point 2: "There is absolutely no safe basis for suggesting she has lied, or, to quell the more hysterical calls, that she should be prosecuted on the basis of Evans’ acquittal."

I think one of the witnesses said what words she used when having sex, and she said she wouldn't use language like that. I think someone may be lying.

Bry Nylon · Oct 15, 2016

Honky Tonx said:
May be before anyone has sex a Form of consent should be signed ... outlining what acts they are willing to participate in.

I don't think [MENTION=31]El Presidente[/MENTION]'s printer could cope.

wellquickwoody · Oct 15, 2016

Tom Hark said:
Kidding aren't you?

Complete and utter SLIMEBALL.

But innocent in legal terms, much to your annoyance.

Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

Ched Evans moved?????

We Got Calde in!!

Will Post For Cash

Drew

Silly old bat

Silly old bat

Well-known member

Drew

Silly old bat

Will Post For Cash

Well-known member

Silly old bat

Well-known member

New member

Well-known member

Well-known member

⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

Well-known member

Well-known member

Test your smoke alarm

Many More Voting Years

Share this page