sadoldgit

The BBC published the results of a survey carried out by the End Of Violence Against Women coalition today and it makes worrying reading. A third of the people surveyed said that there had to be violence for it to be rape. More pertinent to this particular case, 6% (235 people out of 3922) said that it is not rape if the women is very drunk or asleep. Little wonder that it is still so hard to get rape convictions in court.

But not strange at all that you told us yesterday that it had fallen through? As Cabbage would say......mess

A former player who played under Hughes and his coaching team at Blackburn sung his praises and used very similar words to the above when discussing that management team. Perhaps it had changed, perhaps this bunch of players didnt respond? Who knows? Either way, it didnt work out and it looks like we have made a positive change.

Put him on ignore, it will save you a lot of grief!

More so because the perceived wisdom on here said that no manager would be interested in our job!

Did Krueger say we would definately not be spending in January? I got the impression that he said that he didn't think that we needed to because they were happy with the depth of the "roster." That isn't saying that in any given set of circumstances, they definately wouldn't spend.

And had a third disallowed.

Still people are *****ing about Puel yet we finished 8th and did brilliantly well in the cup final. There really is no pleasing some people. If Puel had stayed I think we would still be a mid table side, but we will never know because the club bottled it. We had four consequatibe top 10 finishes but you wouldn’t know it to read the doom and gloom on here at the time. Now we really have something to moan about and many of the wrist slitters have vanished. Go figure?

That would be different to the forum dimples creaming their pants about Big Fat Sam then?

If you decide that someone probably did something have you not made that decision based on beyond reasonable doubt? You also need to look at the way some judges advised their juries. There are some clear cut decisions but many not so clear cut. Do you really believe that juries always reached their verdicts based on absolute certainty? The following quotes are from a current legal journal - "In the unusual civil case, the law does not favour either party, expect that it slightly prefers the status quo. 'More probable than not' with the burden of getting over equipoise, satisfies society's need for stability and is relatively easy for the jury to understand." "In the criminal case, the law tilts in favour of the defendants; it prefers that some guilty go free rather than that some innocents be convicted. The questions are (1) how high the minimum probability should be set and (2) how should the test be articulated." Notice the use of the word "probability?"

My point is that there are people who walk free from court when they are guilty and there are people who get banged up who are innocent. It is my belief that both Evans and his buddy were guilty of sexually abusing someone who was in no fit state to give consent. So in answer to your question I believe that Evans got what he deserved. As for the Birmingham 6, there are processes to recommence those who are found guilty of a crime and then exonerated. I don’t know if they went through a process or whether they received compensation. If they were entitled to it and got it, fair play. I don’t recall them suing their own legal team. If Evans loses his case against his legal team do you believe that the public should recompense him for his loss of earnings? I don’t really think that the Birmingham 6 are a good example. You need to find an example of someone who has been acquitted after serving their sentence where it just comes down to an interrogation by a jury of what happened. Re press coverage, when Evans came to trial there was a great deal in the media from his side painting him as innocent. The second trial was very different in that the Evans team produced 2 witnesses who clearly swayed the jury. The jurors in the second case would also have been aware of the press during and after Evans initial conviction. Jurors are asked to convict on the basis of probability. They might be conflicted but if they can’t be persuaded that the prosecution case isn’t probable in their minds they have to acquit. This leads to many guilty people walking free. Should they all get their loss of earnings paid back to them in every case? Clearly if someone had absolutely nothing to do with a crime and have had their lives hugely disrupted, there is a moral case for recompense. Where there is a fine line between guilty and not guilty perhaps not so much? In Evans case it would appear that he didn’t seek recompense through the courts for his loss of earnings. Instead he has gone down the route of suing his legal team. I can only assume he has been advised not to do the former as he had less chance of winning and if that is the case, it speaks a lot about how this case has been viewed in terms of his innocence. I didn’t see a massive outpouring of relief from the general public when he won his appeal, did you? Was anyone apart from the Evans camp screaming there had been a miscarriage of justice? Very different to the Birmingham 6 case. He will win his case or he won’t. I won’t lose any sleep if he does as he has already demonstrated to the world what kind of man he is and if he is delusional enough to continue to believe he is a victim in all this then nothing will ever change in his own head no matter what the rest of us think. Time to move on.

Every club signs duff players. The point is who wouldn’t trade places with Leicester either last season or this?

I can’t be bothered, like you, to read back through your previous posts. Do you believe that OJ Simpson was innocent of killing his ex wife and her friend? As for Evans, no one was tripping over themselves to give him compensation so he has taken it upon himself to sue his own legal team. Good luck with that Ched. If he fails do you think anyone else will be busting a gut to see that he gets recompense? You seem to think that he has been hard done by. Perhaps you could start a whip round for him?

And I will repeat. He put himself in that position so instead of blaming his legal team perhaps he should think about his own responsibilities for his actions. If he doesn't go into that hotel room he doesnt leave himself open to what happened next. If you cant see that I really cant help you any more. Perhaps everyone should sue their legal teams if they dont get the verdict they want? Where do you think that would leave our justice system? If this was such a clear cut case why do you think that he was found guilty first time round and why do you think he was denied appeals? You might think that he has been hard done by. There are plenty of people who would disagree.

He took his time. Not sure what else they could do in the circumstances considering he admitted everything. He said he believed what happened was consensual which was the bottom line of their case. It isn't their fault that the new "witnesses" didnt appear until much, much later. Perhaps Team Ched should have got to work earlier? Still, if he wins his case you can come back and have a good gloat.

And if they are that decent why are they out of work?

Hughes doesn’t strike me as a man who would let senior management interfere with his team selections. I get that the club need to change this at the top and hopefully that will pay dividend long term. What we need right now though is a change short term. It is hard to see how sacking Reed and Hunter will change things significantly on the pitch today. Hughes doesn’t have a team that picks itself. Either Hughes or his replacement if he is sacked soon will have to find a way to make us hard to beat. Sadly that could mean that we end up with BFS. I know there are some here who would welcome him at the club. I can think of nothing worse. I also hope that this media talk of Hughes needing to beat Watford to save his job is just conjecture. Hughes’s future should be based on his ability to take this club forward. At the moment I would say that he hasn’t shown that he is what we need. Whatever happens in one match shouldn’t make a difference. Krueger says all the “right” things and in his position you shouldn’t expect anything else. People in his position have to talk corporate ********. At least now he and the board are demonstrating that they accept that changes are needed. His support of Hughes is the usual vote of confidence that all Chairman spout in these circumstances, hopefully! I never really subscribed to the view that Hughes should have been given the job because we stayed up. It seemed to be a most unlikely Saints appointment (as I think BFS would be). The next managerial change is massive and it is a worry that Krueger will need to take outside advice on any new appointment. Let’s hope he talks to the right people!

He served two and a half years in prison and lost his job at Sheffield United because he was found guilty of rape. When he was acquitted in the retrial he didn’t sue his club for wrongful dismissal did he? He didn’t get any recompense as part of his acquittal and I don’t see people queuing up to call for him to be financially recompensed for his time in prison by the general public. He is trying to blame his legal team for the fact that he was found guilty. That is basically what I take issue with. He still doesn’t understand that he put himself in that position by behaving in the way that he did. It was no one else’s fault. It would have been good to get some female perspective on this whole situation but given some of the responses on here I don’t blame them for steering clear. You talk about class UJ. Perhaps he should show some now, stop his supporters from hounding the other party, shut up and get on with his life. He is not a victim. No one has taken advantage of him.

And I am the classless one? Unbelievable, Jeff.

Ched himself had a view of what happened that differed from the prosecutions view of what happened. He lost out on those earnings because he was originally found guilty of rape. We dont know if Sheffield United would have kept him on even if he had been cleared. He is contesting the competency of his legal team for the advice they gave him. They dont agree. It will be interesting to see how that pans out. I know a great deal about this case because of what Evans and his mate told us. For example, it is common knowledge that he walked in, engaged in sexual activity with her, walked out and exited via the fire escape all without saying one word to her. If you want a sarcastic definition of "classy" UJ I would suggest that this is it. I worked for the Crown Prosecution Service for 8 years. For the last few years I managed the case working team in our RASSO unit (rape and serious sexual assault) so I know quite a lot about bringing cases like these to court. A senior prosecutor from that unit lives in my village and we still meet up and talk about these cases from time to time so I do some insight into what goes on. As for your definition of trolling UJ, are you being serious? I suggest you go back and read this thread from the beginning. I have been consistent about my view of the case all along. That is not trolling, that is expressing a view. I also have a view on people who think that taking advantage of others when they are incapacitated is ok. Again, that is not trolling. It seems to me you think that a troll is someone who says things that you disagree with? Instead of playing silly buggers, perhaps you would like to explain why it is seemingly ok to question the veracity of the OJ Simpson verdict but not so the veracity of the Evans appeal verdict?

Oh do grow up. If posting an opinion on here constitutes trolling we are all guilty. Instead of playing childish games why don’t you tell me why you think I am wrong?

With Ched invading the Philip Green thread, following the news that he is suing his initial legal team for his lost earnings, perhaps it’s time to return him to his own thread and discuss the latest developments. Here’s a thought Ched. Instead of blaming others for your loss of earnings, perhaps you should question your own wisdom in going to that hotel room that night? You might have been eventually acquitted of rape, but you haven’t been acquitted of being a low life scum bag who deserved all he got. What happened to him was as a direct result of his actions that night rather than the legal competency of his team. It’s hard to see what more they could have done (other than possibly bribe some witnesses). The usual suspects will be supporting him no doubt, but the upside is the stain of what he did that night will never leave him. The days when women were supposed to be “asking for it” because the were flashing some cleavage, wearing a short skirt or incapacitated through drink or drugs is over and this case has done a lot to bring this issue to light. It cost you a lot of money Ched but perhaps you have learned a lesson? I hope that these new legal fees cost you a fortune and that you lose. You may then learn another lesson in humility. Ok Duckie, knock yourself out!

You don't believe that guilty people have walked away from court then? That UJ is bull****. Do you have a view on whether OJ Simpson killed his wife and her friend or do you just think that he must be innocent because a jury said so? Bringing this back to the subject matter, if Green is charged he will face a trial at which he will be either found guilty or innocent of those charges. If it were a normal person our names would already be in the media. He has lots of money and power and was able to gag the press. There are reasons why alleged offenders can be named pre trial and victims names cannot. One is to protect the victims and encourage them to go through a legal process (which by the way, can be very arduous). Another is to possibly prompt others who feel that they have a case against the same person to come forward. As we know from recent history, many abused people do not say anything. The #metoo unit shows that all too clearly (unless you think they are all lying - which is a possibility although unlikely). Green is clearly an odious individual but he is not being accused of being odious, he is being accused of being a bully and of sexual harassment. Privilege and power should not prevent him going through the same procedure as the rest of us. If you believe that it is okay to gag the press, then perhaps you should be campaigning for us all to have the same rights, not just the wealthy and the privileged?

Even by your low standards Duckie this is a very crass statement. Too much weed yesterday? Perhaps I should throw the OJ Simpson v Nicola Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman back at you? Still, at least you are prepared to accept that there are miscarriages of justice, which brings us back to Evans and his mate. The definition of a victim is someone who has been taken advantage of. CCTV footage shows that this woman could barely walk that night. She awoke the next day not knowing where she was or who she had been with the night before. Fair game? Maybe to you she was and clearly to Evans and his buddy. With the evidence they had the jury found Evans guilty of rape in the initial trial. They let his mate walk which surprised me as if she wasnt considered fit enough to consent to Evans how was she in a state to consent to his mate? Still, guilty he was found and he served his time after several attempts at appeal were over ruled. He then gets his retrial after two new witnesses come forward. Where were they either during or just after the first trial you ask yourself and why did their evidence sound so similar? The CPS believe that the Evans camp paid these witnesses, but the judge in the retrial didnt accept this. Fair enough, but the CPS just dont just pluck this stuff out of thin air and they and the police would have reasons to make their claim, even if they couldnt prove it to a judge. The Evans camp released the name of the victim on social media and I believe, continue to do so (illegal by the way). From the beginning they have been working hard to trash the name of the victim (who, by the way, did not bring this case to court). In the second trial he was found not guilty of rape and acquitted. All this means is that in the eyes of the law he did not rape the women. In the eyes of the law OJ Simpson did not kill his ex wife and her friend. In the eyes of the law the Birmingham Six were initially guilty. Everyone is entitled to have a point of view on these cases and their verdicts. Apparently, according to the usual suspects on here, I am not. Perhaps women who are off their heads on drink and or drugs are still fair game according to some. Personally I think it is good that the CJS is seeking to protect people who are in no fit state to make rational decisions. Still if you think that what Evans and his mate did does not constitute a violation and were perfectly entitled to do what they wanted with someone off their head, fair play to you. Anyway, you dragged Ched Evans onto a Philip Green thread so if you want to continue, perhaps you should take your defence of Evans back to his thread along with your buddies and let us get back to debating the rights and wrongs of Parliamentary privilege?

That is not what the first jury decided so it was clearly not as clear cut as you would like to think. Also it is entirely possible to be a victim of crime if the alleged perpetrator is found not guilty. If the woman in the Evans case had consensual sex, how come she had absolutely no idea of what happened to her? Perhaps you are the type who like your women unconscious or drunk or drugged out of their brains?