Ched Evans

You can discount the last theory.

Why?

You can't say that he is certainly not a rapist,

you kind of can.

Why?

Because she never said he raped her. The CPS decided he had a case to answer.

Because she never said he raped her. The CPS decided he had a case to answer.

Surely someone had to make a complaint to the plod?

Surely someone had to make a complaint to the plod?

You have taken some outraged moral stance and position on something you clearly have no knowledge of. Go do some research and come then come back.

Fake indignation - That's all your posts are.

Surely someone had to make a complaint to the plod?

Nope, she went to the police about a missing handbag.

You have taken some outraged moral stance and position on something you clearly have no knowledge of. Go do some research and come then come back.

 

Fake indignation - That's all your posts are.

The only people with all the facts are the jury so we are all speculating with just some of the facts so you can pull you head out of your arse.

The only people with all the facts are the jury so we are all speculating with just some of the facts so you can pull you head out of your arse.

That's untrue, journalists were in the courthouse. The only thing unreportable is the ladies name.

The only people with all the facts are the jury so we are all speculating with just some of the facts so you can pull you head out of your arse.

The only people with all the facts are the three people that were in the hotel room, even if they can't actually recall. The jury can only make educated guesses based on what they are permitted to hear by expensive lawyers.

That's untrue, journalists were in the courthouse. The only thing unreportable is the ladies name.

Going on reports is still second hand info, you can't make a judgement on wether you think someone is being honest or not by reading it in the paper. As the poster above says, the only people who really know are the people in the hotel room.

Going on reports is still second hand info, you can't make a judgement on wether you think someone is being honest or not by reading it in the paper. As the poster above says, the only people who really know are the people in the hotel room.

Quite clearly, it's not me with my head up my arse................ You got all fake angry without knowing even the BASIC facts in this case.

You got all upset without even realizing she never clamed rape or made a complaint.

But to be clear, rape is a disgusting horrible nasty weak crime, that deserves the toughest punishments we have to offer.

I stand by my previous post - This was as bizarre case as you could get and should never have gone to court.

No winners.... Only losers in all this horrible nonsense.

Oh and by the way Evans is a knob for what he did.

So, basically, her life has been ruined and she has to move to Australia to escape losers and bullies because the police / CPS decided to pursue an offence against a person that the person wasn't even bothered about.

Very odd situation indeed.

It's essentially fallout from the Saville crimes. Cps are scared of being perceived or letting 'famous' people off the hook.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

Quite clearly, it's not me with my head up my arse................ You got all fake angry without knowing even the BASIC facts in this case.

 

You got all upset without even realizing she never clamed rape or made a complaint.

 

But to be clear, rape is a disgusting horrible nasty weak crime, that deserves the toughest punishments we have to offer.

 

I stand by my previous post - This was as bizarre case as you could get and should never have gone to court.

 

No winners.... Only losers in all this horrible nonsense.

 

Oh and by the way Evans is a knob for what he did.

I didn't get angry about anything that is all in your head. I was just speculating about what could have happened and if her not reporting it is true then she either was raped whilst passed out or was just too ****ed to remember giving consent. Given that drunken consent is still consent it is amazing how it has got this far. I'm guessing the first jury was made up of old people who had little understanding of how some young ladies nowadays treat sex as some form of sport.

re-signing for Sheffield United

So after the Ched Evans case, we now have the accusations for Ronaldo, 9 years after it happened.

From what I've seen and heard, this is yet another blow to the "Me too" movement, and women's rights in general. And on the flipside, this could be extremely damaging financially and reputationally for CR7.

Why is it a blow?

Why is it a blow?

Because it 'could' be another woman crying rape when it's not.

Because it 'could' be another woman crying rape when it's not.

Ronaldo raped Ched Evans?

I would say it's a bit premature to call it a blow to "me too". The bigger blow to that is how leniently Asia Argento has been treated despite being a predator purely because she is female.

[video=youtube_share;h7SpXGz-XOc]

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!

HCDAJFU

Ched Evans is a bit of a bellend. Not sure anyone has tried to argue otherwise.

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!

How come you know more about what happened that night that Ched himself?

Just because he went back to a hotel room with a woman who then said she didn't consent doesn't mean he should lose out on earnings.

How come you know more about what happened that night that Ched himself?

 

Just because he went back to a hotel room with a woman who then said she didn't consent doesn't mean he should lose out on earnings.

Let's just be clear though that this thread was bumped by soggy because he's embarrassed at his initial reaction which was to scream rape apologist at posters who justifiably thought there was more to this case that could result in a successful appeal. Rather than address that though and maybe approach the matter with a bit of humility considering that those people were entirely correct, he's gone on another cringey and irrelevant rape culture type rant. The facts are:

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.

I expect those points will be a bit too nuanced for soggy but hopefully clearer for others to understand.

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!

Reported for trolling.

Perhaps next time you should use a subject that isn't about potential rape to get your trolling done.

Classless *****.

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!

He didn't do anything wrong or that has happened to thousands of men before him. I hope you've asked for consent before that one time you had sex.

He didn't do anything wrong or that has happened to thousands of men before him. I hope you've asked for consent before that one time you had sex.

Don’t think you need consent for a J Arthur.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Best to be on the safe side and have a dry hump in your pants.

Reported for trolling.

 

Perhaps next time you should use a subject that isn't about potential rape to get your trolling done.

 

Classless *****.

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?

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?

You think that because someone is a bit of a scumbag they deserve 2 and a half years in prison and the loss of a couple of million pounds?

That is a trolling statement if ever I've seen one.

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?

Do you regret branding the people who thought Ched Evans had a good chance at a successful appeal rape apologists?

Do you accept that questioning the original verdict based on the facts of the case does not mean you "support" Ched Evan's actions?

Is Ched Evans a rapist?

I outlined extensively why you were wrong above.

 

Do you regret branding the people who thought Ched Evans had a good chance at a successful appeal rape apologists?

 

Do you accept that questioning the original verdict based on the facts of the case does not mean you "support" Ched Evan's actions?

 

Is Ched Evans a rapist?

Anyone think that perhaps the reason he's so against Evans and believes it was rape and that he got the miscarriage of justice that he deserves, was that he is the other guy, and he was left with sloppy seconds?

How come you know more about what happened that night that Ched himself?

 

Just because he went back to a hotel room with a woman who then said she didn't consent doesn't mean he should lose out on earnings.

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?

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?

Please, I'm not going back and reading through a thread full of the useless diatribe you're peddling here. I will just repeat:

You think that because someone is a bit of a scumbag they deserve 2 and a half years in prison and the loss of a couple of million pounds?

We don't disagree that he seems like a scumbag, just that you think being a scumbag deserves prison time and an enormous fine when they've not committed a crime. No wonder the CPS is in complete disarray if that's the opinon of people who work/have worked there.

IMO he deserves his loss of earnings back due to a wrongful conviction.

Please, I'm not going back and reading through a thread full of the useless diatribe you're peddling here. I will just repeat:

 

You think that because someone is a bit of a scumbag they deserve 2 and a half years in prison and the loss of a couple of million pounds?

 

We don't disagree that he seems like a scumbag, just that you think being a scumbag deserves prison time and an enormous fine when they've not committed a crime. No wonder the CPS is in complete disarray if that's the opinon of people who work/have worked there.

IMO he deserves his loss of earnings back due to a wrongful conviction.

Of course he does.

You think that because someone is a bit of a scumbag they deserve 2 and a half years in prison and the loss of a couple of million pounds?

That is a trolling statement if ever I've seen one.

I have no real interest in Ched, but your statement raises an interesting moral dilemma. Ignoring the legalities, and focusing on behaviour he admitted to during the trial - what punishment, if any, should a civilised society hand down?

Assuming he was acquitted after the original trial, and continued to play football at a decent level, that would mean his actions on the night would have gone entirely unpunished. Is that right? Should he be allowed to behave like that with no consequences, especially given his privileged position as a footballer and therefore a role model in society? That outcome doesn't feel right to me either.

On a scale of 1-to-Adam Johnson, where does he fit?

Is this now Saints related due to involving a former player?

(bonus points to anyone that can work out who it is)

I have no real interest in Ched, but your statement raises an interesting moral dilemma. Ignoring the legalities, and focusing on behaviour he admitted to during the trial - what punishment, if any, should a civilised society hand down?

 

Assuming he was acquitted after the original trial, and continued to play football at a decent level, that would mean his actions on the night would have gone entirely unpunished. Is that right? Should he be allowed to behave like that with no consequences, especially given his privileged position as a footballer and therefore a role model in society? That outcome doesn't feel right to me either.

 

On a scale of 1-to-Adam Johnson, where does he fit?

**** me, if you’re going to start punishing people & costing them their jobs for bad legal behaviour, where will it end.

Who is going to be the “role model” judge?

What if Harry Kane bangs 2 role model married chicks behind his birds back, do they all lose their jobs. What if an unknown roofer bangs the same two, does he keep his job? Legal behaviour is legal behaviour. It’s up to his employer whether he keeps his job, but it’s pretty obvious that footballer having his way with slapper isn’t going to cost him his job.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

**** me, if you’re going to start punishing people & costing them their jobs for bad legal behaviour, where will it end.

 

Who is going to be the “role model” judge?

 

What if Harry Kane bangs 2 role model married chicks behind his birds back, do they all lose their jobs. What if an unknown roofer bangs the same two, does he keep his job? Legal behaviour is legal behaviour. It’s up to his employer whether he keeps his job, but it’s pretty obvious that footballer having his way with slapper isn’t going to cost him his job.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Not sure it's got anything to do with his employer. It was after 'work hours' when it happened and by all accounts wasn't funded by the employer.

Having been acquitted, he is just one in a long line of men who have cheated on their partner and been caught!

I have no real interest in Ched, but your statement raises an interesting moral dilemma. Ignoring the legalities, and focusing on behaviour he admitted to during the trial - what punishment, if any, should a civilised society hand down?

 

Assuming he was acquitted after the original trial, and continued to play football at a decent level, that would mean his actions on the night would have gone entirely unpunished. Is that right? Should he be allowed to behave like that with no consequences, especially given his privileged position as a footballer and therefore a role model in society? That outcome doesn't feel right to me either.

 

On a scale of 1-to-Adam Johnson, where does he fit?

**** me, if you’re going to start punishing people & costing them their jobs for bad legal behaviour, where will it end.

 

Who is going to be the “role model” judge?

 

What if Harry Kane bangs 2 role model married chicks behind his birds back, do they all lose their jobs. What if an unknown roofer bangs the same two, does he keep his job? Legal behaviour is legal behaviour. It’s up to his employer whether he keeps his job, but it’s pretty obvious that footballer having his way with slapper isn’t going to cost him his job.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

It’s a fair point, legal behaviour is legal behaviour. The question was not in relation to ‘banging slappers’ specifically, just the way he admits to conducting himself before and during the banging. Same would be true of a roofer.

Basically I find the whole incident pretty abhorrent and I don’t think his activities should have resulted in zero consequence as others do.

He will face social consequences. Every single person who meets him knows exactly what he did and he should be shamed for his actions. All the money and football in the world won't be able to remove that.

Again, fair point.

Not sure it's got anything to do with his employer. It was after 'work hours' when it happened and by all accounts wasn't funded by the employer.

 

Having been acquitted, he is just one in a long line of men who have cheated on their partner and been caught!

A lot of employers have a “bringing the company into disrespect” type clause, I certainly have. Not sure if dipping my wick in a young chick in a hotel room will count,and I very much doubt that I’ll ever find out. That ship has sailed. Perhaps we could arrange a gang bang for Frasier Forster, get his wages off the books.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

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?

[video=youtube_share;xwdba9C2G14]

Anyone think that perhaps the reason he's so against Evans and believes it was rape and that he got the miscarriage of justice that he deserves, was that he is the other guy, and he was left with sloppy seconds?

And I am the classless one? Unbelievable, Jeff.

And I am the classless one? Unbelievable, Jeff.