Ched Evans

He is like a woman on her periods, let it go.

Hipster_Nebula wrote:


Time to move on i think.

Yup, you're right.

And judging by how quiet things appear to be on here nowadays, it looks like quite a few of us already have....

Breadman wrote:

Hipster_Nebula wrote:


Time to move on i think.

Yup, you're right.

And judging by how quiet things appear to be on here nowadays, it looks like quite a few of us already have....

Do as you please.

I don't even know what happened. But I doubt it was that serious. Forgive me if it was.

It wasn't.

That's what makes it all so stupid.

Bread loses, the site loses.

Over what?

An internet spat, that could so EASILY be avoided using the sites provided 'ignore' function

Completely pathetic really - grown men!

Anyway quiet or not we move on - hopefully now we will find the fun again once we put all this behind us.

Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero.

Breadman, you need to get over it - you can't get on with everyone and people will always say nasty things on the internet. Hipster and Magoo have been following me round BWFC forums for 10 years calling me names but I don't quit.

Breadman wrote:

Still, at least Scott's back, so that's ok.....

I'm fine thanks, really doing well, feeling great and looking forwards to a great 2015.

And how about yourself?

scottjames30 wrote:

Breadman wrote:

Still, at least Scott's back, so that's ok.....

I'm fine thanks, really doing well, feeling great and looking forwards to a great 2015.

And how about yourself?

i don't think he asked how you was SJ

y2johnny wrote:

i don't think he asked how you was SJ

Really, the last time he spoke he was offering me an Apology,

i thought he had got over me, he was having a go at someone behind the Pms for playing him or something?

I should take more notice as to whats going on.

This thread is about Ched Evans not about raising old battles that no-one finds interesting.
Stick to the thread.
Steve Bruce thinks he's hard done by and that Evans should be allowed back on the pitch.
Perhaps he should give him a job at Hull!

come on people lets put all this behind us now and get on with the usual drivel we post instead of trying to wind other people up. This is by far the best BWFC forum out there and it would be a shame to see it ruined with all this back biting.

Sorry Rammy for taking this off topic again

rammywhite wrote:This thread is about Ched Evans not about raising old battles that no-one finds interesting.
Stick to the thread.
Steve Bruce thinks he's hard done by and that Evans should be allowed back on the pitch.
Perhaps he should give him a job at Hull!

Bruce is not on his own, apparently two other Prem managers have stood Evans's corner?
I wonder if he wins his appeal what the cost may be to the taxpayer if an injustice has taken place?

We all want to see criminals get their comeupence and I too am glad to see Evans have a hard time of it.
But he's served his time, does he really deserve to be punished by not being able to get a job? It does kind of feel like there is a witch hunt out for him. I really don't know what to think. I am glad he is being treat like shit but isn't it all a bit of unfair justice? I don't know.

Rape is rape. That said, if he pulled a weapon and forced himself on some unsuspecting innocent and beat her up afterwards, I'd be better able to understand the hysteria surrounding a footballer wanting to play football. As it is, I think it is being overdone.

The problem is the original court verdict.  How can one player be let off completely and the other be found guilty?

Clayton McDonald was found not guilty of the exact same crime on the girl and yet Ched Evans was - so she was NOT too drunk for Clayton but suddenly was TOO drunk for Ched!!!

The crux here is that no one can actually remember what actually happened, and that includes the woman - therefore under current law if there is any doubt then they should have returned a not-guilty verdict for both and not half/half like what they have done!

Well put!

bwfc71 wrote:The problem is the original court verdict.  How can one player be let off completely and the other be found guilty?

Clayton McDonald was found not guilty of the exact same crime on the girl and yet Ched Evans was - so she was NOT too drunk for Clayton but suddenly was TOO drunk for Ched!!!

The crux here is that no one can actually remember what actually happened, and that includes the woman - therefore under current law if there is any doubt then they should have returned a not-guilty verdict for both and not half/half like what they have done!

.....which is basically what Bruce etc were arguing. The incident report did imply that the verdict was very questionable so he might actually be innocent AND he's served some time - two reasons for giving him a second chance. He needs to make a successful appeal to convince me though.

He's out on licence so hasn't actually served his time yet. Once that's up I'd look into it again, but not before that.

wanderlust wrote:

bwfc71 wrote:The problem is the original court verdict.  How can one player be let off completely and the other be found guilty?

Clayton McDonald was found not guilty of the exact same crime on the girl and yet Ched Evans was - so she was NOT too drunk for Clayton but suddenly was TOO drunk for Ched!!!

The crux here is that no one can actually remember what actually happened, and that includes the woman - therefore under current law if there is any doubt then they should have returned a not-guilty verdict for both and not half/half like what they have done!

.....which is basically what Bruce etc were arguing. The incident report did imply that the verdict was very questionable so he might actually be innocent AND he's served some time - two reasons for giving him a second chance. He needs to make a successful appeal to convince me though.

Looks like the appeal might have a chance. Very few cases of this type are referred back to the court - around 3 to 4 % of those assessed. Of those that actually make it back to court, 68% are successful. 
However it seems strange that the radio mentioned that the new evidence was a witness statement - either a new witness or a new statement from a previous witness. Seems unusual to come forward after the lad has already served his time.

Let's be honest. Ched Evans might be a fooking tugboat but this conviction has been iffy from the start. I don't understand how there can be two men in a room with a woman, both have sex with her, both claim it was consensual but one ends up in prison and the other gets off scot-free.