sadoldgit

I didn’t know that we were wearing yellow and wore a yellow jumper. It wouldn’t have been a problem if I hadn’t been sitting in the United end! What an amazing day.

Remember, he also thought that Pelle was cr ap. Ings is a quality player and well worth £20m if we can keep him fit.

Don’t get why some don’t rate Ings. He is a quality player. The only problem is keeping him fit.

It looks like Sheffield United are up so delighted for Sharp, McGoldrick and Cranie. I wonder how many of them will be retained next season though?

Be careful Dusic, Shurlock and hypochondriac were very upset when I bumped a thread in the Lounge on the same theme of a Saints player written off far too soon. The player in question was Jan Bednarek.

Now would seem to be as good a time as any. Forum gold.

If Grealish goes, it will be to a bigger club than Palace.

Thanks for sharing your viewing material Duckie. No wonder you don’t have time for Facebook!

Your comments are straight out of the Tommy Robinson speech book mate. I joined Facebook to keep in touch with friends and family and particularly like any of the political guff that finds its way onto my page. I have blocked loads of extremist guff from both sides, but mainly from the far right because they have sent most of it! A lot of it still gets through because people I know share it. Do you think it is okay that organisations promoting hatred can send unsolicited stuff out on social media? Do you think it is ok for ANY political organisations to tell blatant lies through social media? As for being a good person, isn’t it better to aspire to being good than to aspire to being an ar5sehole?

If you were Putin why wouldn’t you want Trump to be POTUS? TV and radio have regulatory bodies, why not privately owned social media bodies. Are you not aware of the recent issues over a girl’s suicide which her father feels was prompted by stuff on Instagram?

Smoking too much week again Duckie?

It’s not that simple though, is it? Millions of people use these and millions of people are being targeted with unsolicited information, not all of which is kosher. During the EU referendum I got all sorts of stuff sent through from the Brexit camp, much of it untrue. We know that Russia used social media used social media to try and influence the American presidential elections. These platforms are being used more and more to inform and try and change opinions. To say they can do what they like leaves us open to unchallenged propaganda on a global scale. The fastest and most effective way of spreading information/misinformation is via social media. Saying they can do what they want leaves the door open to all kind of problems. Ok, they decide to ban far right organisations, but what if they also had decided to ban Brexit organisations at the time of the referendum? I don’t particularly like censorship, but surely there must be some kind of regulatory body to ensure that social media is not misused? People use social media to keep in touch with friends and relatives. Is it realistic to expect people to leave things like Facebook in droves because they don’t like some of the content?

I am not talking about those of either side of the spectrum who are clearly off the scale! And where do you get this "the left are full of hate" from? You sound like hypochondriac with his "socialism is dangerous" nonsense. I thought that you were smarter than that?

Which seems to support what I said. Ken Marsh, chairman of the Met. Police Federation is quoted as saying, "This is very, very difficult for us because my colleagues have never come across the situation that they are faced with at the moment. They are dealing with very, very passive people who dont want confrontation whatsoever with the police or anyone else but are breaking the law." Not something you hear said about right wing gatherings, to be fair.

You don’t seem to get the same issues with those of the far left. What is it about those of the far right that makes them so unpleasant, anti social and often psychopathic? As you often see on threads on here, those of a far right persuasion will argue constantly and unsympathetically against anything vaguely liberal. Once you move further left than liberal (mind you, they seem to think that anything closer to the middle ground from their position is fair game) then they ramp it up. Tribalism kicks in across the board of course, but the far right seems to attract the more unpleasant specimens of society.

This will no doubt upset a few of the regular posters here, but what does this mean for freedom of speech? I am all for getting rid of these people from social media platforms, but if they don’t transgress the law, is it right?

Not anti men Duckie. Just anti rapists, terrorists, anyone who makes the lives of others miserable etc. But then you right wingers don’t like us liberals do you? I will give it a rest for now but think it a shame that you do not seem remotely bothered that there is a possibility that the new evidence was bought and orchestrated. If I were a defence counsel in sex cases there are a few people on this thread who I’d love to have on a jury.

Dangerous talk? Why? Evans made decisions that evening that led to him being prosecuted for rape. If he had made different decisions the chances are he wouldnt have been. No it is not illegal to go to a hotel room. But it is what happened when he went into that hotel room that led to him being prosecuted for rape. If it is not illegal to have sex with a p*ssed up stranger why was he originally found guilty of rape? If he was the victim of an inadequate defence, why did'nt the Evans camp just change their legal team? Instead they put up a reward of £50,000 and it was this money that swung the case is their favour. As you say, they settled out of court. You might think that was because his original team thought that they would lose. Here is another thought. Perhaps they estimated that fighting the case would cost them £1.25m. Perhaps they took the pragmatic approach and saved themselves thousands by settling out of court? This is a quote from Brabners, his original legal team: "We are glad that Ched Evans has agreed not to pursue this case which we believe was entirely without merit. Brabners put forward a strong defence of Mr Evans' claim following a thorough process and we were prepared to vigorously defend our handling of the case." Apparently Evans tried to sue them for £21m. UJ - I believe that you know exactly what the difference is and are being deliberately being obtuse. If you dont, then you really are not vert bright, are you? Either way, I will leave you to play your silly games on your own. So, for those who realise that fine margins apply in the Criminal Justice System just as much as they do in football matches, here are something that came out after the appeal that are worth knowing:- During the appeal case that led to the retrial, layers for the Crown suggested that the two new witnesses (that came forward when the reward was offered) may have been "fed" information by those close to Evans. This claim was rejected by Evans's side and by the appeal court. The appeal court judges expressed "a considerable degree of hesitation" before allowing the new evidence of the former partners because it would result in the complainant's sexual behaviour being subject to forensic scrutiny. Sexual offence prosecutors fought for years to protect rape victims from this and there is a real fear that this ruling has set a precedent and the prosecution of rape and serious sexual assault cases could be set back years. Evans's girlfriend, Massey, was accused in legal argument during the second trial of offering an "inducement" to a key witness. The prosecution said that this had "the flavour of a bribe." The trial judge disagreed. The complainant continues to be named and abused on social media, even though the law grants her lifelong anonymity. The police are investigating at least one blog that identified her during the trial. She changed her identity and her new identity was circulated through Twitter and other forms of social media by what are thought to be people close to Evans. Some of these people have already been fined and warned. You probably know this already but it also emerged that Evans's younger brother and another man were trying to film what was happening from outside the room. More, Rachel Krys of End Violence Against Women Coalition said after, "We are very concerned at the precedent which might have been set. In addition to this there are reports that the defence offered a "bounty" for such testimony. This is extremely worrying." Polly Neate, chief executive of Women's Aid said, "There is a big risk that this case overall has a negative impact on reporting. Only this week the CPS figures revealed a quarter of women (already in the system) are not pursuing cases. If you look at the surrounding maelstrom about this case, it's easy to see why that is the case." "A woman's past sexual history bears no relevance on whether or not they have been a victim of rape. There is a need to challenge pervasive cultural assumptions that equate a woman's former sexual history with her likelihood of being a victim of rape." (This is particularly relevant in the Evans case and the evidence in the second trial).

Firstly calm down UJ, you will have a stroke. If you have been following the comments about this case you will see that one particular poster refered to this type of incident as, and I can't remember the exact words, but it was to the affect of a "normal night out." Said poster has also sided with Evans pretty much through the whole episode. If you are that bothered you go and find the post, frankly, life is too short but I will give you a clue, his sidekick is called Robin. As well you know, if a consenting couple get wasted and have sex, of course it is not rape. This law is about protecting those in completely different circumstances so please let's not pretend that you do not understand the difference (especially in this case when the defendant walked into the room, did what he had to do and walked out without having previously met the person or even having a rudimentary conversation with her). Duckhunter, you have the nerve to call me stuck in the 70's. Do you read your own posts? Your constant references to "birds" and "chicks" and your arcane view of women make it sound like you have been stuck in a timewarp and, for you, the last 30 or 40 years haven't actually happened. You are lucky that there are very few women on this site otherwise you would have been lynched long ago. For the record, your last post shows that you could not have missed the point any further if you had tried! Try to understand this, there is a very big difference between consensual sex and rape. The idea that women someone how enjoy being raped died out with people calling women "birds" or "chicks." Plying someone with drink or drugs in order to get them to have sex with you is no longer viewed in the way it was in the last century. Where did your notion that I see the two trials as a "draw" come from? I raised the point about the first trial for those like you who seem to think that Evans did nothing wrong and is a victim. Senior Crown Prosecutors obviously thought that he did something wrong as they charged him with rape. The first jury obviously believed that he had done something wrong as they found him guilty of rape. He put himself in a position where a serious criminal charge was brought against him. No one dragged him to that hotel room. No one forced him to have a sexual encounter with an inebriated, total stranger. To somehow pretend that he is a complete victim is nonsense. Also where did this thing about my disliking working class blokes come from? Ched Evans used to earn £18,000 a week. How does that make him working class? Feel free to provide evidence Duckie. Perhaps you are basing your assumption on my dislike of Tommy Robinson (or that well know working class lad Stephen Yaxley-Lennon)? I can assure you that my dislike of him is based entirely on his racist politics and his behaviour. Your idea of what goes on in rape trials and the ordeal that many rape victims still go through in court is as outdated as your language. Yes, there have been a number of moves to try and improve things for the victims, but don't kid yourself that the defence don't try every trick in the book to discredit the victims in the eyes of the jury or try to influence judges to allow the use previous sexual history in court. Women are no longer the preserve of all red blooded males and the days when you could hit them over the head with a club and drag them back to your cave are long gone. The class system doesnt exist in the way you think it does anymore.The world has moved on Duckie, you need to too mate.

It is ridiculous that it has come to this and it would not have been necessary if the Government hadn't stripped a British citizen of her citizenship in an effort to suck up to the far right. I am pretty sure is illegal according to international law. As for the comments from my internet stalker, if he bothered to read what I have actually written several times on this thread, rather than read what he thought I said, he would see very clearly that I do not have a problem with Shamima Begum facing the justice system if she returns to this country and there is a case for her to answer to. His comments are worrying though. Apparently we are "pretty sure" that she was not just a housewife and these are backed up by "facts." What facts exactly are these hypo? A couple of newspapers have printed some allegations apparently coming from people who use to know Begum. At what point have these become "facts?" They are not facts, they are allegations and we cannot be "pretty sure" about anything until these allegations are proven to be "facts." Unless of course you are an Islamophobe and then, obviously, Muslims are guilty by association. You give yourself away time and again mate. I shall take your apology for misrepresenting my position on this person as read. Here is a little tip for you hypo, if you are going to accuse someone of making themselves look foolish on here, probably best not do it yourself too, eh pet?

Pay attention, it was in this case and defence often try and find ways to bring it up. You really don’t have a clue and your constant defence of Evans speaks volumes about you. You were bothered that I called him a rapist but not in the least bit bothered about me accusing OJ Simpson of a double homicide. Odd.

Hi Egg, I worked for the CPS for 8 years. For the last few years I managed a team of paralegals, some who worked with our RASSO unit (Rape and Serious Sexual Offences). It is a hideous crime and going through case notes on a regular basis really brings it home. Despite efforts to make bringing these prosecutions to court easier it is still a tall order to get the cases to court, let along to get a conviction. You will see by some of the comments on this thread that a dinosaur attitude still prevails whether it be Unbelievable Jeff deliberately missing the point or Duckhunter talking about those who bring false rape accusations when they are a tiny minority and the bigger problem is the number of people who dont follow through on rape accusations because they can't face going through it all again in court. The defence will do all they can to discredit the victim and whereas the accused just used to deny it, they cant do that anymore thanks to DNA evidence. Now that just say it was consensual and the prosecution have to prove otherwise. Not easy in so many rape cases when it is one word against another. If the victim isnt covered in bruises she clearly didnt try and fight the bloke off. If she was prone to wear short skirts and low cut tops she was clearly asking for it. If she was drunk it was her own fault for not being in control. These things still go through people's minds even in 2019, when you'd like to think we would be more enlightened. It is very expensive bringing cases to court. The CPS do not prosecute people for the fun of it and clearly believed McDonald and Evans were guilty of rape. These are very professional people who deal with these cases on a daily basis, not a bunch of internet warriors just filling in time while they wait for the pubs to open or looking for a wind up. I prefer to believe them than some of the clowns on here who still seem to think that it is perfectly ok to use someone for sex who you have just found wandering around and out of it. And yes UJ, there is a big difference in getting wasted with your wife and having sex and picking up a wasted stranger, taking her to a hotel and having sex with her, but then you know that don't you.

Let's start with the woman in question not being a "victim." Irrespective of what happened in the hotel room, despite it being illegal to name her, she has been constantly named and harassed on social media by the Evans camp right from the start. She even changed her name but they found out her new name and posted it on Twitter and in blogs. This continued despite a number of the Evans camp being warned and fined. Now regarding his defence. His defence team maintain that they acted properly. The fact that they settled out of court does not mean that they accept that they were inept. Decisions to settle are made for many different reason, not least the cost. They might simply have decided that it would be cheaper to pay him off than to go through a lengthy and costly court battle. Evans father in law has plenty of financial clout and it was him that put up the cash for the reward amongst other things. Now to the law. Legally someone is too drunk to consent to sexual activity if they are incapacitated. This can mean; their speech is slurred or incoherent and they cant maintain a conversation, they cant walk properly or are wobbly and unbalanced, they seem drowsy or fall in and out of consciousness, their behaviour seems wildly out of character and they've taken part in dangerous or risky activities, they won't be able to remember what happened the next day, they have been vomiting. The prosecution established that the lady was incapacitated. Neither McDonald or Evans had meet the lady before she became incapacitated therefore they could not argue that she had previously consented to sexual activity before she became incapacitated and that it was how the evening was going to pan out with or without booze or drugs. If she was unable to consent to sexual activity because she was incapacitated and both McDonald and Evans engaged in sexual activity with her, both are technically guilty of rape. A jury decision either way does not prove something one way or the other, it is just a decision based on what has been presented to them by the prosecution and the defence. As I have said before, I dont think that many people believe that OJ Simpson did not kill his wife and her boyfriend, but he walked free nonetheless. There are clearly some different opinions on here, but the law clearly states that it is not possible to have consensual sex if one party is incapacitated. I guess we all have our own interpretations of what constitutes incapacitation in this case, but I also guess that we have all done things when drunk that we would never have dreamed of doing when sober. That is why this law is there, to protect the vulnerable. Finally, there is the moral issue. Whatever you think of either of the verdicts, the actions of these two men suck, especially Evans. If anyone thinks what either of these men did was okay, I pity the women in your lives, if you have any, and doubt that you have daughters.

Dirty chick? What planet are you from? Why would I have an issue with a white male? I have an issue because an incapacitated woman was picked up and taken to a pre booked (by Evans) hotel room where his mate had sex with her and phoned Evans telling him he had someone. Evans turned up, did what he wanted without uttering a word to the woman and then crept out via the fire exit. The evidence provided showed the woman was clearly incapacitated. His mate had a choice. He could have left her alone or he could have seen that she got home safely. Instead he took her to a prebooked hotel room and had sex with her. He then got his mate round for some action. Somehow now Evans is a victim? Poor Ched. He was forced to go to a hotel and perform a sex act with a “dirty chick.” Give me a break!

They found him not guilty thanks to new “evidence” provided after £50,000 was offered by the Evans camp for such evidence. As for going out and supposedly having a good time, great. Especially if you have no recollection of it. She said she felt that her drink has been spiked. Fair game for predatory males so that’s ok then.