Ched Evans: How many goals for ANOTHER chance here?

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

Ched Evans: How many goals for ANOTHER chance here?

  • Total voters
    429

I'd welcome him back if it stops Lavery being our only option!!
 
blader said:
To be honest, this will be my last response to you. Such a ‘brexit’ attitude you have based on your last statement. You know it’s detrimental to the harmony of the supporters but you want it, so bollocks to them.

You have your beliefs, I have mine. But I think you’ll find an overhwhelming majority of the country’s football fans would be unwilling to have Evans play for their team. It is your view that is the minority of the country, and what is a closer divide just within SUFC, based on past successes. Anyway, good luck mate, it’s a shame your pal won’t be playing for blades next season.
Click to expand...
Harmony of the supporters? So basically your saying we should all hate an innocent man and deny him his freedom to work and get on with his life because of a few people who hold backward views on society? I'll pass, in fact I couldn't stand back, ethicaly and watch you go unchalanged.
The majority didn't want a rapist, neither would I. He was cleared , don't pretend nobody would want him because he cheated on his Mrs and had a threesome.

Would somebody please think of the children.
 
So many Ched supporters shout about how he was proven not to be guilty and has cleared his name in the second trial (he wasn't, by the way, he was aquited, which is different), does it not occur to anyone that the jury simply took the easy way out of a difficult case and said, "he's already done his time, finding him guilty won't achieve anything"?
I'm not interested in getting into all this again, but the whole "he only cheated on his girlfriend" just shows a lack of knowledge of the case.
 
Hamburg Blade said:
So many Ched supporters shout about how he was proven not to be guilty and has cleared his name in the second trial (he wasn't, by the way, he was aquited, which is different), does it not occur to anyone that the jury simply took the easy way out of a difficult case and said, "he's already done his time, finding him guilty won't achieve anything"?
I'm not interested in getting into all this again, but the whole "he only cheated on his girlfriend" just shows a lack of knowledge of the case.
Click to expand...
And yet you did get into it again.
 
andy m said:
And yet you did get into it again.
Click to expand...
I meant I don't want to spend the next 10 pages talking about it. I posted enough on the original Ched threads and almost every angle and argument was covered on those numerous times.
 
8lade said:
Curiously enough that was what I thought when he was first found guilty.
Click to expand...
What, when they found one person not guilty and the other guilty, you thought that one of those verdicts was the easy way out?
 
Hamburg Blade said:
What, when they found one person not guilty and the other guilty, you thought that one of those verdicts was the easy way out?
Click to expand...

The judge said it was ok to do this. (Even though it wasn't, if she wasn't able to give consent to one it's quite unlikely she was able to give it to the other.) Look we've gone over and over this, if you didn't see the enormous failings in the legal system and by that judge the first time round, will you have an open enough mind to see them this time?
 
Hamburg Blade said:
What, when they found one person not guilty and the other guilty, you thought that one of those verdicts was the easy way out?
Click to expand...

None of us know what the jury thought. That's a spurious argument.

I was happy to accept the verdict if the jury - when FMBlade writes his book I'm sure he'll confirm that - And when he was acquitted, I accepted the Appeal Judges decision. He was therefore free to come back. Whether that was a good idea, we'll finally see this season.

The morality thing is a red herring. If you can't accept the law of the land, making judgements on others probably shouldn't be a big part of anyone's lives. Seedy, undoubtedly. Wicked, no.
 
8lade said:
The judge said it was ok to do this. (Even though it wasn't, if she wasn't able to give consent to one it's quite unlikely she was able to give it to the other.) Look we've gone over and over this, if you didn't see the enormous failings in the legal system and by that judge the first time round, will you have an open enough mind to see them this time?
Click to expand...
It was perfectly reasonable and logical to deliver the two different verdicts, as has been thrashed out on here a couple of times at least, and is not a case of her "giving consent to one but not the other". Go through the old threads if you don't understand that, rather than assume you know more about the law than the judge.
 
Sean Thornton said:
None of us know what the jury thought. That's a spurious argument.

I was happy to accept the verdict if the jury - when FMBlade writes his book I'm sure he'll confirm that - And when he was acquitted, I accepted the Appeal Judges decision. He was therefore free to come back. Whether that was a good idea, we'll finally see this season.

The morality thing is a red herring. If you can't accept the law of the land, making judgements on others probably shouldn't be a big part of anyone's lives. Seedy, undoubtedly. Wicked, no.
Click to expand...

I know no one knows what the jury thought, my point was to raise a possible reason for the aquital in response to those who repeatedly claim his innocence based on the verdict from the second trial, as if it's an indisputable fact that he did nothing wrong.

I don't think it's unreasonable to make a judgement on the outcome of the case, or the morality of the situation; I accept the law of the land, but don't accept that the courts are the only and absolute arbitrator of morals - that's not what they are supposed to be and in fact only determine guilt and not innocence anyway.
 

Hamburg Blade said:
It was perfectly reasonable and logical to deliver the two different verdicts, as has been thrashed out on here a couple of times at least, and is not a case of her "giving consent to one but not the other". Go through the old threads if you don't understand that, rather than assume you know more about the law than the judge.
Click to expand...
Oh the old 'I've said this before' argument, no you nor anybody else has givena reasonable response to this. A person considered too drunk to give consent, is too drunk to give it to 2 guys equally whether one has been with her all evening and the other turned up late. It doesn't matter if one had been her husband of 20 years if she is still too drunk it is not consent, what the judge did was wrong. As simple as that.
 
Hamburg Blade said:
I know no one knows what the jury thought, my point was to raise a possible reason for the aquital in response to those who repeatedly claim his innocence based on the verdict from the second trial, as if it's an indisputable fact that he did nothing wrong.

I don't think it's unreasonable to make a judgement on the outcome of the case, or the morality of the situation; I accept the law of the land, but don't accept that the courts are the only and absolute arbitrator of morals - that's not what they are supposed to be and in fact only determine guilt and not innocence anyway.
Click to expand...


The courts don't set moral limits. Individuals do. Originally found guilty those who accepted the view of the jury who knew more than anyone on here would ever do are the ones who aren't passing moral judgement. Similarly, on his acquittal by people who yet again knew more about the case than the rest of us, some of us found no issue with that decision. Legally or morally. As I said, seedy, yes, wicked, only by those who judge without full knowledge.
 
I think it's pretty sad some people fawning over that pig Jao (or however you spell it) whilst unwilling to entertain one of our own.
 
8lade said:
Oh the old 'I've said this before' argument, no you nor anybody else has givena reasonable response to this. A person considered too drunk to give consent, is too drunk to give it to 2 guys equally whether one has been with her all evening and the other turned up late. It doesn't matter if one had been her husband of 20 years if she is still too drunk it is not consent, what the judge did was wrong. As simple as that.
Click to expand...
It's not about her giving her consent, which normally doesn't happen in a vocal way anyway, it is about a person's reasonable belief in consent.
I can't find the original trial thread, I think it's been removed. Post 319 on this thread gives a very summarised explanation. You can also read a bit of debate on it from about page 7. You are wrong about this - the judge was right.
https://www.s24su.com/forum/index.php?threads/ched-evans-trial-the-new-evidence-is.49636/page-16
 
Sean Thornton said:
The courts don't set moral limits. Individuals do. Originally found guilty those who accepted the view of the jury who knew more than anyone on here would ever do are the ones who aren't passing moral judgement. Similarly, on his acquittal by people who yet again knew more about the case than the rest of us, some of us found no issue with that decision. Legally or morally. As I said, seedy, yes, wicked, only by those who judge without full knowledge.
Click to expand...
I followed the case closely, learnt a lot, it gave me a lot to think about and I spent a lot of time on it. I am not able to ignore my own thoughts and opinions on the case, which naturally leads me to make a number of judgements about those involved. In this case, my conclusions don't line up completely with the second trial verdict.
 
The wider debate around this topic is fascinating, even if from a footballing perspective it's become tiresome at this point.

I can sympathise with the view that if in principle you trust the legal system, then logically you should go along with the conclusion it comes to. In this case, it would mean condemning Evans after the initial verdict, but being open-minded once he was acquitted, which is kind of my position in this case.
In addition, the jurors involved have been exposed to a level of argumentation and evidence from both sides in excess of what I or anyone else could see from an outsiders perspective, so how can I claim to be in a better position to judge than they are?

However.. simply agreeing with legal/jurors decisions would lead you to some pretty unpleasant conclusions when looking at cases from a historical perspective. We know for a fact that the legal system and juries have gotten it wrong in the past, and not even that long ago (see cases of racial assault in the USA, for example). In those cases it would be hard for me to back the legal conclusion, which means I must admit there are times when I give my own opinion precedence over that of the authorities involved in the case. So, if so then, why not here?
I don't have an answer really, my only point is that adhering absolutely to either principle will land you in trouble if you follow it to its extreme.
 
Oh, and to get back on topic. If Evans bangs in 12-15 goals by Christmas I would agree with having him back here to see how he can do.
 
tomtheblade said:
The wider debate around this topic is fascinating, even if from a footballing perspective it's become tiresome at this point.

I can sympathise with the view that if in principle you trust the legal system, then logically you should go along with the conclusion it comes to. In this case, it would mean condemning Evans after the initial verdict, but being open-minded once he was acquitted, which is kind of my position in this case.
In addition, the jurors involved have been exposed to a level of argumentation and evidence from both sides in excess of what I or anyone else could see from an outsiders perspective, so how can I claim to be in a better position to judge than they are?

However.. simply agreeing with legal/jurors decisions would lead you to some pretty unpleasant conclusions when looking at cases from a historical perspective. We know for a fact that the legal system and juries have gotten it wrong in the past, and not even that long ago (see cases of racial assault in the USA, for example). In those cases it would be hard for me to back the legal conclusion, which means I must admit there are times when I give my own opinion precedence over that of the authorities involved in the case. So, if so then, why not here?



I don't have an answer really, my only point is that adhering absolutely to either principle will land you in trouble if you follow it to its extreme.
Click to expand...



Not in this case it hasn't. We aren't calling heads or tails a hundred times here. I'm in no "trouble"because I accepted the verdict of people who knew more than me - quite a few of us followed the case closely btw - neither am I in trouble because of the acquittal.my comments relate solely to this case. No absolute adherence to a principle whatsoever. Whatever I thought of Evans behaviour initially was tempered by subsequent events. I don't need the justification of an early moral judgement after the initial conviction, simply because I don't approve of his actions. Nor am l claiming him to be innocent. The moral compass is a thing of degrees. I suspect we all pick out various figures so it suits ourselves so we aren't burdened by guilt on what we do do "wrong". Someone somewhere can make judgements on all of us on here based on our posting history. It's an opinion, nothing more, and certainly not written in stone for the undecided or unclear.
 
Sean Thornton said:
Not in this case it hasn't. We aren't calling heads or tails a hundred times here. I'm in no "trouble"because I accepted the verdict of people who knew more than me - quite a few of us followed the case closely btw - neither am I in trouble because of the acquittal.my comments relate solely to this case. No absolute adherence to a principle whatsoever. Whatever I thought of Evans behaviour initially was tempered by subsequent events. I don't need the justification of an early moral judgement after the initial conviction, simply because I don't approve of his actions. Nor am l claiming him to be innocent. The moral compass is a thing of degrees. I suspect we all pick out various figures so it suits ourselves so we aren't burdened by guilt on what we do do "wrong". Someone somewhere can make judgements on all of us on here based on our posting history. It's an opinion, nothing more, and certainly not written in stone for the undecided or unclear.
Click to expand...
Yeah like I said I'm mainly talking about the general principles here, not this specific case. This is an example of a grey area where you could reasonably take either position, which I think is why we see so much disagreement on this topic.
 
tomtheblade said:
Yeah like I said I'm mainly talking about the general principles here, not this specific case. This is an example of a grey area where you could reasonably take either position, which I think is why we see so much disagreement on this topic.
Click to expand...

Probably best we adopt a utilitarian attitude in cheds case then and go with the majority .

So, judging by the latest scores on the doors it's 71 against Ched coming back and 250 backing his return .

Suck it up ched haters the chedsters coming back home :p:p:p
 
Hamburg Blade ok I don't want to taint another thread (too late somebody beat me to it) with the same old arguments and thank you for pointing me in the direction of bartman 's posting. In my mind that particular post is flawed, before we even get to 'perceived consent' I wonder what the feminists (and sane people too) would make of that argument?
I am dropping myinput to this from the thread because it is the wrong place to discuss it however if you want to post about it further I'd be happy to in an 'off topic' post.
In particular what you say in posting 140 strikes a chord as I did the same but came to the opposite conclusion.
 
Excellent post tomtheblade possibly the best I've seen on this topic I would just add what was particularly worrying (from people I met not so much people on here) and any of these people could become or had already been jurors were the 2 following horrifying arguments:
'You're only on his side because he's a United player.'
'If you were a woman you'd feel differently about this.'
Neither of these were true the 'side' I was on I had arrived at by studying as much material around the case as possible but to think a jury member would base a decision on
1. The alleged crime's seriousness.
2. Whether they liked the suspect or not (for whatever reason).
3. That he was male (or female).

Just makes our legal system a laughing stock.
 
Personally I would not have him back, & did not agree to having him back! Whether the court found him guilty or not guilty is in many ways irrelevant to me, his actions were morally wrong from my perspective. Many others would disagree, & may have taken the same decisions that he did. My own moral compass was & continues to be appalled by his actions, but that does not mean he is not beyond redemption & maybe he is a changed man. But personally I think his career needs to develop at another club, & in that I wish him well.
 
Should have said 'does not mean that he is beyond redemption'!
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

Back
Top Bottom