You know how someone said it could be worse

Top bloke Joe Cole. He's 34 so a spring chicken compared to Heskey.

FullofSprite wrote:Beggars can't be choosers - if Evans score 15 goals for us will anyone complain? I don't think so. 

Yeah, me for one so you're wrong.

It's only a game and I may be out of step with modern football fans, but if we did sign him, I wouldn't back him even if he scored 50 goals and won us the FA Cup.

It's bad enough that we're expected to laud a prick like Madine (who isn't even a decent footballer) but if this clown signed for Bolton that really would be it for me.

Breadman wrote:

It's bad enough that we're expected to laud a prick like Madine (who isn't even a decent footballer) but if this clown signed for Bolton that really would be it for me.

As I say, fickle.

Breadman wrote: if this clown signed for Bolton that really would be it for me.

You haven't been to a game in years, surely "it" has already happened.

Natasha Whittam wrote:

luckyPeterpiper wrote:I could not look my wife and daughters in the eye and justify giving our family's money to an organisation that employs a convicted rapist who has lost two appeals already. End of.

I'm sure you give money to organisations that employ rapists, murderers and train fare dodgers every day of the week. There are criminals in every organisation. Convicted or not.

I would normally disapprove of signing a convicted rapist, but in this instance I'm not sure the guy did it. We should give him a chance.

And trust me, if he scores 15 goals and keeps us up he'll be a legend regardless of his past. Football fans are fickle.

If and it's a very BIG if in my opinion his appeal succeeds then I might, just might reconsider but don't expect it. If it doesn't and we employ him anyway then I don't care if he scores 100 a season, I'll be done with BWFC. There's a world of difference between buying a product or service from a company where they may or may not have some former criminals in their ranks and giving money to a football club is KNOWING they have a convicted rapist and an unrepentant one at that being paid more money in a month than many fans earn in a year playing for them. 

No Nat, perhaps a lot of fans are as fickle as you say but not THIS fan. Evans has already lost not one but TWO appeals and the court is reviewing a third to decide whether or not it's willing to give it a hearing. Employing this man will see me cease to support BWFC in any way shape or form. I'd rather see the club fold than be asked to cheer a scumbag like this.

Judging by the following item on the BBC website today, it sounds as if Evans would be better off signing for Cologne where he would be in "good" company:

The mayor of Cologne has summoned police for crisis talks after about 80 women reported sexual assaults and muggings by men on New Year's Eve.
The scale of the attacks on women at the city's central railway station has shocked Germany. About 1,000 drunk and aggressive young men were involved.
City police chief Wolfgang Albers called it "a completely new dimension of crime". The men were of Arab or North African appearance, he said.

I'm guessing that not many people on here have read the particulars of the case? From what I've read I have to agree with Nat that it is astounding that he was convicted in the first place. I mean the only evidence that they actually had sex at all came from Evans himself who freely admitted he'd had consensual sex with her, she was too pissed to remember actually having sex. Obviously there's something wrong with that scenario but it doesn't stack up to proof of rape as much as I want to defend the rights of drunken slappers who willingly go to football players hotel rooms.
Having convicted him on very spurious grounds it's not surprising that his appeals weren't successful as it would be an incredible admission of miscarriage of justice and a massive compensation payout for taking years of the man's life and ruining his career. Maybe if he's successful with his appeal he'll be able to buy the club?

luckyPeterpiper wrote: There's a world of difference between buying a product or service from a company where they may or may not have some former criminals in their ranks and giving money to a football club is KNOWING they have a convicted rapist and an unrepentant one at that

This is another reason why I think he may be innocent.

At no time has he admitted it. He's admitted he was a bellend for putting himself in that situation but nothing more.

If he'd come out and said "yes, I was pissed and acted like a complete tosser. I did it and I deserve my jail sentence" I think public reaction wouldn't have been so vocal, and he'd probably have signed for somebody half decent.

LPP, read the evidence and see if you still feel the same. Remember, Clayton McDonald also had sex with the victim and he walked. How was it possible for Clayton McDonald and Ched Evans both charged with an identical crime on the same ‘complainant’, to be acquitted and convicted on the same evidence?

Natasha Whittam wrote:

luckyPeterpiper wrote: There's a world of difference between buying a product or service from a company where they may or may not have some former criminals in their ranks and giving money to a football club is KNOWING they have a convicted rapist and an unrepentant one at that

This is another reason why I think he may be innocent.

At no time has he admitted it. He's admitted he was a bellend for putting himself in that situation but nothing more.

If he'd come out and said "yes, I was pissed and acted like a complete tosser. I did it and I deserve my jail sentence" I think public reaction wouldn't have been so vocal, and he'd probably have signed for somebody half decent.

LPP, read the evidence and see if you still feel the same. Remember, Clayton McDonald also had sex with the victim and he walked. How was it possible for Clayton McDonald and Ched Evans both charged with an identical crime on the same ‘complainant’, to be acquitted and convicted on the same evidence?

Natasha's voice here made me go back and read some of the details or alleged details of the trial.  She is quite correct in pointing out that both McDonald and Evans were charged with an identical crime.  One got off and one got convicted.  That makes no sense.  The judge and jury found that a person intoxicated cannot give consent to sexual activity.  There is conflicting testimony seen on CCTV on how intoxicated the woman was.  But the fact that a jury found one person innocent and the other guilty is a flagrant violation of fairness.  The facts remained the same.  She was either too intoxicated to give consent or she was not. 

Points to think about...

Many men are often in the position of having sexual relations with women who have had a few drinks.  How does one know where the line is drawn?  Each person has  a different metabolism in consuming alcohol. 

Without a blood test, there is no known way of proving this.  Just because a person cannot walk a straight line, does not make them intoxicated... rather there can be medical reasons for such inability.  Also, blood alcohol levels for intoxication are different in every town, city, state, country.

The woman did not file the complaint... which leads to believe there were outside forces controlling the prosecution.

How many footballers are followed by hordes of women who want to have sex with them... many I would suspect!

Again, this, as Natasha has clearly stated, is a very tenuous case on many counts.  It is highly suspicious to me, that someone can be convicted while the second person is exonerated... especially on the basis of non-consent through intoxication.  Intoxication was not proven nor is it possible to prove consent for one person and non consent for the other... while the complainant is not the victim.  Clearly two lives are destroyed through social media and prison thereafter.  It seems a travesty of the judicial system in many ways.  Was he guilty?  i don't know... but I do know that the system failed here in many ways... from collecting evidence to a lack of a complainant to a lack of judicial sense.

It is an intriguing case on several counts. I find the whole "too intoxicated to give consent" premise to be shaky at best. It assumes that a woman who is drunk doesn't know what she's doing, fair enough but makes no allowance for the fact the man is likely to have consumed as much if not more alcohol than she has and therefore must be suffering from impaired judgement also. 

There doesn't seem to be a hard number on this as there would be in a drink driving case either. What has really grabbed my attention in this particular case is a comment from Helen Mirren. Dame Helen states, "If a woman takes off her clothes and gets into bed with a man willingly then wakes up and regrets it then I think she has only herself to blame. It's utterly ludicrous that yes is now presumed to mean no simply because she had a few drinks beforehand. It's unfair to put the entire responsibility for knowing whether or not she can give informed consent on the shoulders of a man who is likely to have had a few drinks himself and it doesn't help with the problem of real rape which needs to be properly addressed and dealt with." She was slated by the then Home Secretary and told her comments were "not helpful" but interestingly not one of the major women's rights groups said a single word about it. The silence from people who could be assumed to be most vociferous on the subject and condemn anyone for suggesting a rape law might be violating the rights of the accused and be lacking in basic common sense was deafening. 

As to Evans himself. It's a tough one to judge from outside, my immediate reaction remains the same though. He's been convicted of rape, two appeals have failed. Professional footballers are meant to be role models and the clubs they represent are meant to be a part of the local community. As such I cannot and will not support a club that employs such a man. I find it abhorrent. I realise it's a visceral, emotion driven reaction but I think I would be far from alone in that. 

However, I do agree there are glaring inconsistencies in this case and firmly believe a retrial would be in order rather than a simple appeal hearing. A complete re-examination of the evidence and a complete recall of all the witnesses who should be properly cross examined may finally bring to light the actual facts of what happened that night. If he was acquitted in such a trial then I would drop any objection to him joining us. In the interests of simple fairness and justice I believe that a full retrial with a completely new jury is the only way to go.

luckyPeterpiper wrote:

However, I do agree there are glaring inconsistencies in this case and firmly believe a retrial would be in order rather than a simple appeal hearing. A complete re-examination of the evidence and a complete recall of all the witnesses who should be properly cross examined may finally bring to light the actual facts of what happened that night. If he was acquitted in such a trial then I would drop any objection to him joining us. In the interests of simple fairness and justice I believe that a full retrial with a completely new jury is the only way to go.

I'd agree but for one thing....

...there wasn't actually any evidence.

Evans and McD gave statements as did a hotel porter who claimed he was listening outside the door. The woman herself made no statement as she couldn't remember anything. That's it apparently, so what would a jury be re-examining?

wanderlust wrote:

luckyPeterpiper wrote:

However, I do agree there are glaring inconsistencies in this case and firmly believe a retrial would be in order rather than a simple appeal hearing. A complete re-examination of the evidence and a complete recall of all the witnesses who should be properly cross examined may finally bring to light the actual facts of what happened that night. If he was acquitted in such a trial then I would drop any objection to him joining us. In the interests of simple fairness and justice I believe that a full retrial with a completely new jury is the only way to go.

I'd agree but for one thing....

...there wasn't actually any evidence.

Evans and McD gave statements as did a hotel porter who claimed he was listening outside the door. The woman herself made no statement as she couldn't remember anything. That's it apparently, so what would a jury be re-examining?

There is NO complainant.  There are two men charged with a heinous act of victimizing an intoxicated woman.  She is not a complainant... only the Crown is prosecuting this.  There is a limited recollection by one man and no recollection by the woman.  There is a video taken at the time.  There were no blood alcohol levels.  CCTV was limited in scope.  The same evidence convicts one man and exonerates the other.  Clearly this is a travesty of the Crown bowing to social pressure of the times.  This in no way makes Evans into a saint, which obviously he is not.  This just questions the motives of the Crown in becoming a complainant in lieu of the victim. 

If we follow this to it's logical conclusion, in the future men must carry consent waivers for any such behavior as well as alcohol blood testing kits to determine if such consent will be valid in the jurisdiction they are in.  Men would also need a GPS to determine which jurisdiction they are in, and what the blood alcohol levels are in that township, city, etc.   I don't feel as if Evans is a good fellow, but neither do I feel he has been given a fair and impartial trial.  Juries are often swayed by events around them, and rape by intoxication seems to be the current (or then) favorite social more that was in the papers.  This is a sad commentary on the legal system, the court system, the prosecutor's office, the jury system, and the lack of good sense by footballers who should walk or run away from situations that could endanger their careers.  There are no winners only losers here.

Time to hold my hands up and admit I've changed my mind about this.

I've just spent 20 minutes doing what I should perhaps have done before I commented yesterday - some background research, and it does indeed appear that the case against Evans is flimsy at best and I'm amazed that a guilty verdict was returned against him.

So there you go, I was wrong.

Welcome aboard, Cheddy!

(Can we still mathematically make the play-offs?)

why is the review taking so long? i seem to remember it was announced months ago. It does seem from the information i have seen it is a flimsy conviction and he doesn't come out of it well and only enforces the typical footballer stereotype.

Is he actually on trial with us or is it all a load of bollocks?

Norpig wrote:why is the review taking so long? i seem to remember it was announced months ago. It does seem from the information i have seen it is a flimsy conviction and he doesn't come out of it well and only enforces the typical footballer stereotype.

Is he actually on trial with us or is it all a load of bollocks?

It's a twatter rumour ATM.
TBF the general perception in the media is that we're so f***** they can create free column inches by associating absolutely anyone with us - the more sensationalist the better.
Don't be surprised if Lord Lucan and the ghost of Stanley Matthews are linked with us before the month is out.
In this environment there is absolutely no way of knowing which rumours are true and which are complete garbage.

Question:

In Obs table of footballer convictions above did Peter Storey get done for all those crimes?

i.e. car theft, counterfeiting, running a brothel, disorderly behaviour and smuggling porn?

Bet he missed training a few times with all that going on.

wanderlust wrote:Question:

In Obs table of footballer convictions above did Peter Storey get done for all those crimes?

i.e. car theft, counterfeiting, running a brothel, disorderly behaviour and smuggling porn?

Bet he missed training a few times with all that going on.

I've been waiting for someone to say that we missed a bunch of them... namely our squad this year for "theft of service."

Breadman wrote:Time to hold my hands up and admit I've changed my mind about this.

I've just spent 20 minutes doing what I should perhaps have done before I commented yesterday - some background research, and it does indeed appear that the case against Evans is flimsy at best and I'm amazed that a guilty verdict was returned against him.

So there you go, I was wrong.

Welcome aboard, Cheddy!

(Can we still mathematically make the play-offs?)

i agree. (Please don't say you were being sarcy now)

y2johnny wrote:

Breadman wrote:Time to hold my hands up and admit I've changed my mind about this.

I've just spent 20 minutes doing what I should perhaps have done before I commented yesterday - some background research, and it does indeed appear that the case against Evans is flimsy at best and I'm amazed that a guilty verdict was returned against him.

So there you go, I was wrong.

Welcome aboard, Cheddy!

(Can we still mathematically make the play-offs?)

i agree. (Please don't say you were being sarcy now)

People might not like it but things have just got worse. It seems Clough is out the door -probably to Bristol City. Still of we get £2 million who can blame us