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

8lade said:
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.
Click to expand...

Whatever feminists or any of is think about the "reasonable belief in consent", it is in fact the law. I was grateful to a couple of the legal bods on here during the first trial who went to some lengths to help the rest of us understand what the law actually says, which I didn't know beforehand. A lot of comments I see make it clear that the poster doesn't understand the law and I think, in a wider context, it is a bad thing that we have a law that people don't properly understand. It needs to be taught in schools, or something.
It's fine to have a discussion about how the law has been applied and whether he was guilty or not, but it makes no sense claiming he was guilty or not guilty based on an ignorance of the law, which is why so many conversations go round in circles.

8lade said:
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.
Click to expand...

I think when people actually become jurors, they suddenly take the whole thing much more seriously. Anyone with a bias, i.e. a Sheffield United fan, would hopefully not be allowed to sit on the jury anyway. Yes, you would hope that people wouldn't make decisions based on whether they are male or female, but that also applies to the police, CPS and judges. Do away with the jury and you may still have the problem - at least a jury can have a mix of men and women. Despite its potential flaws, I believe a jury system is the best system and don't believe it is a laughing stock. I live in a country without a jury system, which I find a little scary. Germans don't understand the advantages of it and, unfortunately, take their knowledge of it from US TV dramas.

PS my experience has been that women can be very unsympathetic to the woman in this case.
 
Jim Chimmerney said:
and back on topic again, I believe he's injured and won't play tonight.
Click to expand...

10 page of arguments (again), he’s injured again, ironically during a loan spell to prove his fitness and he hasn’t scored for us... yes it’s been a successful signing all in all!

Can’t wait until we let him go, hope it’s Jan rather than then end of the year but I’m willing to wait I until the end of the season to have something to celebrate!
 
blader said:
10 page of arguments (again), he’s injured again, ironically during a loan spell to prove his fitness and he hasn’t scored for us... yes it’s been a successful signing all in all!

Can’t wait until we let him go, hope it’s Jan rather than then end of the year but I’m willing to wait I until the end of the season to have something to celebrate!
Click to expand...
Until we let him go, he scores a hatful and........................
 
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...
I'm no expert, you seem to have dug deeper in this then me so maybe you can help. I'll give you my very basic take on this element of it and you can tell me if I'm wrong (hopefully where)

Ched was innocent till proven guilty

He was found guilty and sent to prison

Served the time and then campaigned to clear his name

The previous ruling was overturned and his name was 'cleared'

Now my take is they were not saying he was defiantly innocent, bit there wasn't enough there to prove his guilt?
Therefore by the first point is assumed innocent?

Iv no problem with people not believing his side just because he was cleared. Just like I never accepted he was guilty even though they came back with that verdict. However iv no time for people who think he deserves to be treated like a rapist whether he did it or not because his 'morals' don't match that of there own.
 
I am not well disposed to Evans because irrespective of what the law may say about his actions, those actions had very negative consequences for Sheffield United.

Had Evans not done what he did we would almost certainly have been promoted in 2012. We had another 5 seasons in League one instead. Now we are up, our owners cannot compete with other teams re fees and wages. The situation might have been better in 2012.

It may not be a popular view but it's my view. Evans has done more damage to the club's prospects (and reputation) than anyone else this decade imho. I am baffled as to why McCabe wanted him back after the mess he created.
 
BladeInIreland said:
I'm no expert, you seem to have dug deeper in this then me so maybe you can help. I'll give you my very basic take on this element of it and you can tell me if I'm wrong (hopefully where)

Ched was innocent till proven guilty

He was found guilty and sent to prison

Served the time and then campaigned to clear his name

The previous ruling was overturned and his name was 'cleared'

Now my take is they were not saying he was defiantly innocent, bit there wasn't enough there to prove his guilt?
Therefore by the first point is assumed innocent?

Iv no problem with people not believing his side just because he was cleared. Just like I never accepted he was guilty even though they came back with that verdict. However iv no time for people who think he deserves to be treated like a rapist whether he did it or not because his 'morals' don't match that of there own.
Click to expand...
To start with, I'm not a legal professional, so this is only as I understand it. Your points are essentially correct. I'm not sure whether he had served all his time and was out on licence, but that's irrelevant. As far as I remember it, his sentence was set aside and he was re-tried, as opposed to the trial being an appeal.
The use of the word innocence is tricky. The term "innocent till proven guilty" is purely for the purposes of preventing arbitary punishment, but obviously you can't treat someone under arrest as innocent otherwise you couldn't put him in handcuffs and lock him up. (I'm not sure where, or even if, this term is written into the legal system).
Courts, too, only deal with guilt and not innocence. Not guilty means, as you say, too much doubt to say guilty - hence sayings such as "better 100 guilty men go free than 1 innocent man be wrongly convicted" etc, it could be considered unfair, but no one is ever proven innocent, so even if acquited people can have the stigma hanging over their heads.
 
Revolution said:
I am not well disposed to Evans because irrespective of what the law may say about his actions, those actions had very negative consequences for Sheffield United.
Click to expand...
Very good point.
Revolution said:
Had Evans not done what he did we would almost certainly have been promoted in 2012. We had another 5 seasons in League one instead. Now we are up, our owners cannot compete with other teams re fees and wages. The situation might have been better in 2012.
Click to expand...
Disagree with this, had he not been heading to trial he would have almost certainly been sold in January having accrued 14 goals by the end of December and this was what United have consistently done until recently.
 
8lade said:
Disagree with this, had he not been heading to trial he would have almost certainly been sold in January having accrued 14 goals by the end of December and this was what United have consistently done until recently.
Click to expand...

This may be right (to draw one parallel, Beattie would have gone in Summer 2008 but for his injury). On the other hand, 2011-12 was one of the few years between 2007 and 2016 when our best players were not sold off: Slew went I suppose but that was more a DCL type sale that did not have much of an effect.
 
There'll be another chance for him judging by some of the posts

Just scored again
 

If we don’t bring a striker in before the deadline this will be sickening on current form
 
In half a season I don't know, probably around 5 going towards 10, but more importantly getting match fitness and contributing a good bit to fleetwoods sucess.
Probably won't be given the chance even if he does well, just out of favour same with Lavery.
 
Reedy_22 said:
No leave him where he is. Let him build his fitness and gain some confidence and we can re-evaluate in Jan.
Click to expand...
I agree. I think it’s good for him and us for him to have a spell away from here where expectations aren’t so high. A fit and confident Ched is what’s needed. It would be a bit of a fairy tale if it came true, but let the lad try for it.
 
Got to be a better bet than Lavery who won't get a look in. At the minute we are only an injury to Sharp or McGoldrick away from trouble. If he keeps this up he surely will be recalled at Xmas...if we can't sooner ?
 
Reedy_22 said:
No leave him where he is. Let him build his fitness and gain some confidence and we can re-evaluate in Jan.
Click to expand...

The correct and non-kneejerky answer. If he can maintain this he’ll obviously be a potential asset come January, if needed. But let’s wait till that happens first – we’ve had so many false dawns with players returning from injury before, you’d think that people might wait a bit longer than a month before considering whether a player is now fully fit and injury-free.
 

I don't want any of our front 3 to get injured and agree we're light up front but we do have Woodburn as a potential 4th striker, he's certainly got a good finish in him
 
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