Search results

No. No, he wasn't. He was in a cab on his way elsewhere (to collect his brother from a police station, rings a bell) when he got the text from his mate, telling him to come and fill his boots, so diverted the cab. After he'd gained access to the room (by lying to the receptionist) he sneaked...

There are, as you say, things we'll never know. So, if we only stick do what we DO know: Evans responded to a text from a mate ('Got a bird') and let himself into a hotel room, with said mate and a drunk girl that he'd not previously encountered, had sex with her whilst his mate watched, and a...

I'm not suggesting it 'makes no difference'. Of course it does. What I'm saying is that I personally think he is a scrote (based entirely on HIS account of the night), and would still not wish to employ him, or see him at a club I support, regardless of his guilt in the eyes of the law.

Indeed - if I were an employer who had chosen not to employ him at the time, or a fan who had campaigned for my club not to sign him, I'd be perfectly comfortable with my stance, based on that behaviour - regardless of any appeal.

Tbh, an awful lot of people were of the opinion that the guy is an absolute scrote, but accept that 'guilt' in this case is very much subjective. If a different person / judge / court decides he's no longer guilty, on a point of law, it won't change his behavior, or their own subjective view on...

I've had a kick about with him* and he's really not that good. *true story

So long as you could convince the jury that, it was reasonable for you to have believed you 'were doing nothing wrong', then no, you could not be convicted. See McDonald, Cayton for further details.

Its written in the context that Evans has been tried, and found guilty by his peers, of rape.

553325333429358593 Excellent from Henry Winter in the Telegraph. Sums up what many on here have been saying, but more succinctly. Some of the comments below it are depressingly familiar, too...

You honestly don't appreciate that there is a very fundamental difference between these two statements; 'I'd like to apologise for the effects that night in Rhyl, have had on many people' 'I'd like to apologise for the effects my behaviour that night in Rhyl, have had on many people'

Yes, you did.

King is a horrible man. err. No, no they are not. That's not a very clever thing to write. Yes, yes there were. Who are these people you refer to? There was hugh outcry over both Hughes and McCormick - even if the current much wider use of social media has highlighted this one more. On...

So Ched would 'like to apologise for the effects that night in Rhyl has had on many people, not least the woman concerned'. It's a start, and very welcome, but he seems to have missed out the words 'my actions on', before the 'that night' part. It's an apology, but it still fails to accept...

'NSC' doesn't 'think' anything. Anymore than 'twitter thinks' or a 'train carraige of people' thinks. I'd assume that most, if not a 100% of posters would find such behaviour abhorrent.

Owen Oyston. Feel free to google.

Spot on. (And the only club I can imagine taking him, is Blackpool, who are desperate, and whose owner himself is an unrepentant convicted rapist)

I've just read all 11 pages of that Oldham thread. I really pity them, for the horrible situation their disgrace of a board has put them in. :nono:

err... Do you know much about the relationship between Blackpool's fans, and their owners?

Nothing has EXAGGERATED anything. Ched Evans has been found guilty of RAPING a young girl. The various social media / press campaigns have HIGHLIGHTED what he did, yes, but not exaggerated it. He did what he did.

Not the same evidence, no. The lead up to the events in the hotel room were very different for the two defendants. You've answered yourself Trig. McDonald was not acquitted because she wasn't 'too drunk to give consent' to him. It was because the jury did not agree beyond reasonable doubt...