hypochondriac

Sounds like they may be able to save some of it which would be good.

So now it moves onto "if the CPS decide to prosecute someone then I believe that that person is always guilty even if they are subsequently acquitted at a trial because the CPS are professionals." Unbelievable.

It was awful and the worst bit was how long it took to sort it out!

That's not the comparison I'm making at all. You're the one saying we have to listen and believe someone simply because of the colour of someone's skin. We shouldn't disbelieve any reports of racism but you're the one deliberately exaggerating the horrible scourge that is racism to push your specific political agenda. Reports of racism should be investigated and the appropriate action taken where individuals can be identified. Pretending that the majority of people in a crowd are racist is unhelpful and a distortion of the truth.

Yes seems fair comment. There are racist idiots in society and some go to the football and they need to be dealt with.

Listen and believe BAME people always right verbal? Like Jussie Smollett?

Not being sure that someone has committed a crime is categorically NOT the same as "assuming someone is innocent." Surely you can see the clear difference??? If you can't then I can't think of another way of explaining it. Not being sure is not the same as assuming innocence I'm not sure why you are having difficulty here unless you are wilfully misinterpreting what I said?

No I didn't. You seem to reply in a reasonable manner and then you let yourself down by simply lying. I said that after looking at the case it wouldn't surprise me if the verdict was overturned and that I think he has a good chance of an appeal succeeding. There was no "assumption" of innocence at all after the initial guilty verdict until he was subsequently found not guilty and then he is "innocent until proven guilty". Or as Lord Duckhunter said, are you saying that you are less innocent if you are convicted and then a conviction is overturned?

Well we are in agreement on that score then. It's a shame that others did not take a similar view at the time of the original conviction and this thread wouldn't be as long.

So who decides then? I'm well aware that the justice system is not perfect and that people get convicted when they are innocent and found innocent when they are guilty all the time but as a society we have collectively agreed to follow innocent until proven guilty in a court of law as a standard, otherwise anyone accused of a crime in court and then found not guilty or acquitted is never truly innocent even if they never did anything. Should all people acquitted by the courts be treated with suspicion or not as innocent people simply because they have been accused? By that logic I could accuse you of a crime that you are acquitted of yet still suggest you're not actually innocent of the crime.

Good of you to admit that at least. Most would stay quiet!

Who decides innocence then if not the courts? Maybe we should open up every acquittal to the court of public opinion after the real trial so we can decide how someone should be treated?

Initially I only posted my thoughts on the case once, it was the likes of soggy smearing posters like me as a rape apologist among other slurs that provoked the continuous debate. I don't agree with your assertion that I've played "judge and jury" and I don't believe there is evidence of that here, but the jury have ultimately agreed with my opinion on the case which is not the same thing at all. Again you're making quite a few of these assertions but you're not prepared to find examples so it's probably best not to throw things like this around if they are baseless. I said that looking at the facts it does not appear that Ched Evans should have been found guilty of raping this woman and subsequently the courts have found this opinion to be the correct one. You can disagree of course if you've actually read into the details but the difference is I'm not the one screaming insults at your or falsely smearing you for doing so. I don't believe we should start saying things like "I don't think you should be charged with this crime and the legal process - that is not corrupt as far as we know- has shown this to be the case but I still think you did it and will suggest you did anyway." Otherwise how can we be sure of any conviction? Should everyone convicted of a crime and subsequently acquitted be treated as if they did it anyway even if the defendent is an a*sehole? Let's also be clear as I've said many times here that Ched Evans is clearly not a pleasant individual but the reason this thread has dragged on as long as it has is because there are certain individuals who believe that there should be a different standard for how we treat people based on someone's race, sex, gender, personality etc and my point has always been that people should be treated equally before the law. In summary, we have lots of evidence to suggest that Ched Evans acted extremely poorly and that he is an unpleasant person and we currently have no evidence that Ched Evans has committed a crime so as a society we cannot act as if he is a criminal because that's not how the justice system works. Soggy and people in general may believe that someone acquitted of rape may be guilty of a crime but we are ill equipped to make that judgement ourselves which is why we rely on the justice system to make that determination for us. We can't start arbitrarily assigning guilt or innocence on someone based on how we feel about them because that's madness. And soggy has absolutely looked massively foolish. Jumping in screaming rape apologist and all sorts of baseless slurs at anyone who suggested the verdict may be overturned is pretty disgusting to be honest and even more so when it's clear that this "defence" is employed because Ched is white, male and "provilidged." You'd think it would make him think twice before engaging in that sort of behaviour in the future.

I doubt it let's not kid ourselves. The good news is if he leaves for a top club it will probably be because he has done great here and we will hopefully be in a good position to replace with a koeman type to keep the good times rolling.

I'll take from that that you have no evidence that I said any such thing about a rape victim so I accept your apology. If you read the rest of the thread you would be well aware of why I would be pleased that justice seems to have been done. I'm happy about it because I don't like seeing individuals convicted of a crime when I'm not sure they have committed that crime (and who the person is is irrelevant in that.) of course it has the added benefit of making soggy look like a fool when he was calling anyone who thought an appeal would have a good chance of success a "rape apologist" so I'm also thankful in that respect too. I think when you get falsely smeared as a rape apologist or an advocate of Ched Evans' poor behaviour during the original conviction it's perfectly acceptable to talk about this once the conviction has been overturned.

That's complete and utter b*locks. Please find one example of where I've said anywhere that a rape victim is not a victim? I've said since the start of this that looking at the facts of the case, that the conviction didn't seem that strong and that an appeal had a good chance of succeeding. This is what has happened. Ched Evans is a bellend but he's also innocent in the eyes of the law for the rape offense. We can't start convicting people who have been found innocent just because he seems like not a great bloke, that's an absurd standard. All we can do is put our faith in the justice system which whilst flawed is currently the best system we have. The likes of soggy are quite happy to crow about how good the system is up until the point that it does something they disagree with politically and then it can't be trusted abd it's corrupt.

Did you hear clowns are racist now? It must be true they said it in the paper.

Ched Evans is not a convicted rapist, he has been found innocent of the charge. Ched Evans is a bit of a bellend. Those who thought the original verdict was a bit suspect and that an appeal had a good chance to succeed have been proven right. Those people who shouted rape apologist or other insults at anyone who thought the original verdict was a bit suspect have not only been found to be wrong, but have embarrassed themselves and would probably be respected more if they stayed quiet on the matter. Questioning the original verdict based on the facts of the case does not equal "supporting" Ched Evan's actions. It is possible to be critical of the man's actions whilst being glad that justice seems to have been served and that he has been found innocent of a crime that there was not enough evidence to say beyond a reasonable doubt that he committed.

Let's just remind ourselves of the facts in this case now that soggy is trying to suggest the justice system has been conned by Ched Evans buying witnesses to hoodwink a jury.

Yeah interesting isn't it. When Ched was found guilty there wasn't any room for thinking he may have a good chance at an appeal. You weren't allowed to think there were any flaws in this case because that made you a "rape apologist." Now he's found not guilty, suddenly the system is corrupt and its all just because he bought some new witnesses to make up evidence. Really makes you think.

Hold on are you suggesting that new evidence was falsified? That's a very serious accusation that I assume you have a lot of proof for? Questioning the original verdict based on the facts of the case does not equal "supporting" Ched Evan's actions. It is possible to be critical of the man's actions whilst being glad that justice seems to have been served and that he has been found innocent of a crime that there was not enough evidence to say beyond a reasonable doubt that he committed.

I'd rather have sturrock or the Dutch clowns than pellegrino in charge- some of those performances during that period I've never seen us play with what appeared to be zero gameplan. I'd be happy to say that pellegrino was the worst manager we have had in my lifetime and I've been alive quite a while now! Hughes was quite frankly rubbish this year but he did keep us up last season so he probably earnt his money imo.

In soggy's mind he's bought justice because he's a high profile white straight male who acted very poorly with a woman. Despite the fact he's been found not guilty of the crime, he's still somehow guilty in soggy's mind because of who he is. We might as well apply that logic to every criminal case and just not bother with court cases and the concept of guilt and innocence. Let's just let soggy decide who is guilty even if they are found not guilty in court.

Really pleased for him. Some of the dinlos writing him off on here based on a loan spell at a basket case of a club (reading) need to have a look at themselves.

That red bull bloke we've been linked with for sure