|
Post by manicstreetpotter on Jan 9, 2015 10:07:38 GMT
Rod Liddle? The Spectator? I'm afraid they are never 'Bob on'
|
|
|
Post by mcf on Jan 9, 2015 10:09:25 GMT
good article in the Times from Matthew Syed as well.
number of good points he makes but the bottom line is that rule by mob weakens the law
|
|
|
Post by manicstreetpotter on Jan 9, 2015 16:42:56 GMT
good article in the Times from Matthew Syed as well. number of good points he makes but the bottom line is that rule by mob weakens the law Not sure where all this 'mob rule' talk has come from. A lot of people justifiably being against something does not necessarily mean mob rule. Surely the people who make threats, on both sides, are the minority. Therefore its 'minority rule'.
|
|
|
Post by manicstreetpotter on Jan 9, 2015 16:44:25 GMT
This is not an appeal - I believe the judgement was appealed and the appeal failed There is a body however which looks at court decisions and decides if the court decision is safe or unsafe (have correct procedures been followed etc) - that is the process currently underway Correct. Here is the appeal narrative, for those interested in reading why the appeal was turned down... www.crimeline.info/uploads/cases/2012ewcacrim2559.pdfIt's a poor decision, no doubt, and I think it will be deemed unsafe later. I think the conviction will be quashed in the long term. I'd be very surprised if the conviction is quashed.
|
|
|
Post by bathstoke on Jan 10, 2015 11:05:04 GMT
This is not an appeal - I believe the judgement was appealed and the appeal failed There is a body however which looks at court decisions and decides if the court decision is safe or unsafe (have correct procedures been followed etc) - that is the process currently underway Correct. Here is the appeal narrative, for those interested in reading why the appeal was turned down... www.crimeline.info/uploads/cases/2012ewcacrim2559.pdfIt's a poor decision, no doubt, and I think it will be deemed unsafe later. I think the conviction will be quashed in the long term. He went down on her after his mate had sausaged her! There's no accounting for "taste"
|
|
|
Post by skeelsy on Jan 10, 2015 13:05:47 GMT
Hats off to Steve Bruce for having the courage to stick his head above the parapet and go public with his doubts about the justice of Evans conviction. No doubt the hysterical, knee-jerk, feminist lynch-mob will have already started a petition calling for him to be sacked.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 10, 2015 16:50:07 GMT
Its an odd one with Mr potato head. Why make comment ?
GD
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Jan 10, 2015 18:18:06 GMT
Its an odd one with Mr potato head. Why make comment ? GD Because he know that a certain type of girl throws themselves at young men especially footballers. And he like some of us will know how easy it is to get in the same situation
|
|
|
Post by boothenboy75 on Jan 10, 2015 18:48:57 GMT
Its an odd one with Mr potato head. Why make comment ? GD Because he know that a certain type of girl throws themselves at young men especially footballers. And he like some of us will know how easy it is to get in the same situation I suppose, and seen as his daughter was allegedly involved with one of his footballers, perhaps he'd know more than most.
|
|
|
Post by Stafford-Stokie on Jan 10, 2015 18:57:32 GMT
Well done to the Oldham fans.
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Jan 10, 2015 19:05:12 GMT
Well done to the Oldham fans. Spot on. The majority of those signing petitions will not be football fans
|
|
|
Post by lawrieleslie on Jan 11, 2015 10:04:28 GMT
Correct. Here is the appeal narrative, for those interested in reading why the appeal was turned down... www.crimeline.info/uploads/cases/2012ewcacrim2559.pdfIt's a poor decision, no doubt, and I think it will be deemed unsafe later. I think the conviction will be quashed in the long term. I'd be very surprised if the conviction is quashed. I agree, read about the role of the CCRC here www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/about/criminal-cases-review/policies-and-procedures/ccrc-q-and-a.pdfScroll down to the paragraph title "What is new evidence and legal arguement ?" And it states that the CCRC can only consider overturning a conviction based on new evidence that has cropped up after the trial. They cannot review evidence that was heard by the judge and jury at the trial even if the defendant thinks the jury made the wrong decision.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 11, 2015 10:14:09 GMT
Well done to the Oldham fans. Spot on. The majority of those signing petitions will not be football fans That's the trouble with so called social media, if this feminist Jean Hatchet got enough of her yoghurt knitting fraternity to spread the word, then it just goes viral, and as you point out, I bet none of them have ever been to a football match, let alone followed Oldham/Hartlepool/Sheff Utd. I hope that if his conviction does get overturned, then she comes out and apologises, though somehow I doubt it very much, will be far too busy sewing patches on her dungarees and listing to k.d Lang.
|
|
|
Post by bathstoke on Jan 11, 2015 11:45:56 GMT
Spot on. The majority of those signing petitions will not be football fans That's the trouble with so called social media, if this feminist Jean Hatchet got enough of her yoghurt knitting fraternity to spread the word, then it just goes viral, and as you point out, I bet none of them have ever been to a football match, let alone followed Oldham/Hartlepool/Sheff Utd. I hope that if his conviction does get overturned, then she comes out and apologises, though somehow I doubt it very much, will be far too busy sewing patches on her dungarees and listing to k.d Lang. Other cliches are available...
|
|
|
Post by Stafford-Stokie on Jan 11, 2015 11:52:37 GMT
I'd be very surprised if the conviction is quashed. I agree, read about the role of the CCRC here www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/about/criminal-cases-review/policies-and-procedures/ccrc-q-and-a.pdfScroll down to the paragraph title "What is new evidence and legal arguement ?" And it states that the CCRC can only consider overturning a conviction based on new evidence that has cropped up after the trial. They cannot review evidence that was heard by the judge and jury at the trial even if the defendant thinks the jury made the wrong decision. Is the fact that she tried it with someone else before new evidence as this wasn't allowed to be submitted in the original trial?
|
|
|
Post by lawrieleslie on Jan 11, 2015 11:57:10 GMT
I agree, read about the role of the CCRC here www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/about/criminal-cases-review/policies-and-procedures/ccrc-q-and-a.pdfScroll down to the paragraph title "What is new evidence and legal arguement ?" And it states that the CCRC can only consider overturning a conviction based on new evidence that has cropped up after the trial. They cannot review evidence that was heard by the judge and jury at the trial even if the defendant thinks the jury made the wrong decision. Is the fact that she tried it with someone else before new evidence as this wasn't allowed to be submitted in the original trial? Good point but is previous conduct admissible as evidence now if it wasn't at the trial.
|
|
|
Post by Stafford-Stokie on Jan 11, 2015 12:03:35 GMT
Is the fact that she tried it with someone else before new evidence as this wasn't allowed to be submitted in the original trial? Good point but is previous conduct admissible as evidence now if it wasn't at the trial. No idea mate, hence my question. I really can't see how there wasn't reasonable doubt during his trial. When you see some if the things that some have got away with over the years this one astounds me.
|
|
|
Post by lawrieleslie on Jan 11, 2015 13:22:15 GMT
Good point but is previous conduct admissible as evidence now if it wasn't at the trial. No idea mate, hence my question. I really can't see how there wasn't reasonable doubt during his trial. When you see some if the things that some have got away with over the years this one astounds me. There appears to be doubt now in hindsight but without new evidence he's stuffed I would think.
|
|
|
Post by basingstokie on Jan 11, 2015 14:35:34 GMT
The more I read about this (& I know I wasn't in the court room) it's blatantly f***ing obvious that he didn't rape her.
She was perfectly willing and active participant in this and just woke up in the morning with regrets.
She comes out of this sordid affair with no more credit than Evans or Mcdonald, but one has had to change her name and assume a new identity, 1 is being hounded wherever he goes and those linked with employing him are having their wife's threatened and 1 is walking free and doing whatever they want.
|
|
|
Post by boothenboy75 on Jan 11, 2015 14:57:48 GMT
The more I read about this (& I know I wasn't in the court room) it's blatantly f***ing obvious that he didn't rape her. She was perfectly willing and active participant in this and just woke up in the morning with regrets. She comes out of this sordid affair with no more credit than Evans or Mcdonald, but one has had to change her name and assume a new identity, 1 is being hounded wherever he goes and those linked with employing him are having their wife's threatened and 1 is walking free and doing whatever they want. I think you need some new glasses, as your account makes no sense at all. Nobody other than the raped woman knows if she awoke with regrets or not, as she never actually made any claim of rape. It was the police who prosecuted on the basis that the woman was in no fit state to consent due to being drunk. I think I'm right in saying that all she's ever said is that she has no recolection of what happened. If your going to make sweeping statements about what went on then you'd probably be better off re-reading what actually went on.
|
|
|
Post by basingstokie on Jan 11, 2015 17:27:53 GMT
The more I read about this (& I know I wasn't in the court room) it's blatantly f***ing obvious that he didn't rape her. She was perfectly willing and active participant in this and just woke up in the morning with regrets. She comes out of this sordid affair with no more credit than Evans or Mcdonald, but one has had to change her name and assume a new identity, 1 is being hounded wherever he goes and those linked with employing him are having their wife's threatened and 1 is walking free and doing whatever they want. I think you need some new glasses, as your account makes no sense at all. Nobody other than the raped woman knows if she awoke with regrets or not, as she never actually made any claim of rape. It was the police who prosecuted on the basis that the woman was in no fit state to consent due to being drunk. I think I'm right in saying that all she's ever said is that she has no recolection of what happened. If your going to make sweeping statements about what went on then you'd probably be better off re-reading what actually went on. The Police could never prosecute without her participation, so they must have convinced her she'd been raped and given some of her texts afterwards she appears to have thought it was a route to £'s. You might not like my viewpoint, but I stand by it. I do not believe he raped her. I believe all 3 people behaved sordidly and for some reason the Police decided the men were the guilty parties and then for some reason the jury found her capable of consenting to Mcdonald but not Ched.
|
|
|
Post by boothenboy75 on Jan 11, 2015 18:10:04 GMT
I think you need some new glasses, as your account makes no sense at all. Nobody other than the raped woman knows if she awoke with regrets or not, as she never actually made any claim of rape. It was the police who prosecuted on the basis that the woman was in no fit state to consent due to being drunk. I think I'm right in saying that all she's ever said is that she has no recolection of what happened. If your going to make sweeping statements about what went on then you'd probably be better off re-reading what actually went on. The Police could never prosecute without her participation, so they must have convinced her she'd been raped and given some of her texts afterwards she appears to have thought it was a route to £'s. You might not like my viewpoint, but I stand by it. I do not believe he raped her. I believe all 3 people behaved sordidly and for some reason the Police decided the men were the guilty parties and then for some reason the jury found her capable of consenting to Mcdonald but not Ched. The police could easily prosecute without her participation. I can understand your points about the texts that followed and not understanding how 1 of the men could be found guilty but not the other but to say that the prosecution only happened as she woke with regrets the next morning is quite clearly wrong.
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Jan 11, 2015 22:27:52 GMT
Does chatting up some pissed up bird in a taxi legally allow you to fuck her?
Didn't think so
So if she has no recollection they must both be guilty
|
|
|
Post by Northy on Jan 12, 2015 8:54:24 GMT
good article in the Times from Matthew Syed as well. number of good points he makes but the bottom line is that rule by mob weakens the law Not sure where all this 'mob rule' talk has come from. A lot of people justifiably being against something does not necessarily mean mob rule. Surely the people who make threats, on both sides, are the minority. Therefore its 'minority rule'. 60,000 people petitioned against him playing for Oldham who's average gate is about 4,000, all wound up by the feminazis and a couple of others who are doing it where ever he goes, they seem to be whipping up a mob, why aren't they campaigning to get Luke McCormick out of football, he killed 2 children ?
|
|
|
Post by manicstreetpotter on Jan 12, 2015 13:00:14 GMT
Not sure where all this 'mob rule' talk has come from. A lot of people justifiably being against something does not necessarily mean mob rule. Surely the people who make threats, on both sides, are the minority. Therefore its 'minority rule'. 60,000 people petitioned against him playing for Oldham who's average gate is about 4,000, all wound up by the feminazis and a couple of others who are doing it where ever he goes, they seem to be whipping up a mob, why aren't they campaigning to get Luke McCormick out of football, he killed 2 children ? To be honest I'm surprised it was as low as 60,000 considering the man in question. I wonder if the alleged threats of violence will ever materialise? Another classy bit of spin for Massey and co to add to the website.
|
|
|
Post by Stafford-Stokie on Jan 12, 2015 13:03:17 GMT
60,000 people petitioned against him playing for Oldham who's average gate is about 4,000, all wound up by the feminazis and a couple of others who are doing it where ever he goes, they seem to be whipping up a mob, why aren't they campaigning to get Luke McCormick out of football, he killed 2 children ? To be honest I'm surprised it was as low as 60,000 considering the man in question. I wonder if the alleged threats of violence will ever materialise? Another classy bit of spin for Massey and co to add to the website. There are only so many bandwagon jumping, hysterical bitches that have enough time on their hands to be so pathetic.
|
|
|
Post by manicstreetpotter on Jan 12, 2015 13:08:25 GMT
The Police could never prosecute without her participation, so they must have convinced her she'd been raped and given some of her texts afterwards she appears to have thought it was a route to £'s. You might not like my viewpoint, but I stand by it. I do not believe he raped her. I believe all 3 people behaved sordidly and for some reason the Police decided the men were the guilty parties and then for some reason the jury found her capable of consenting to Mcdonald but not Ched. The police could easily prosecute without her participation. I can understand your points about the texts that followed and not understanding how 1 of the men could be found guilty but not the other but to say that the prosecution only happened as she woke with regrets the next morning is quite clearly wrong. Do you think maybe they didn't convict McDonald because they were together when they went back to the hotel so harder to prove beyond reasonable doubt that it was not consensual? Where as Evans then turns up, has sex with her and then decides it's best to leave via a fire escape. Not so hard to distinguish between one and the other is it? Yep, I'm with the jury and judges on this one but don't let you armchair legal experts let that get in your way
|
|
|
Post by manicstreetpotter on Jan 12, 2015 13:10:31 GMT
To be honest I'm surprised it was as low as 60,000 considering the man in question. I wonder if the alleged threats of violence will ever materialise? Another classy bit of spin for Massey and co to add to the website. There are only so many bandwagon jumping, hysterical bitches that have enough time on their hands to be so pathetic. Well thank god there are a least some eh? Here's hoping that is the last we have seen of this odious toad. Like football hasd't got a bad enough reputation.
|
|
|
Post by tazi on Jan 12, 2015 13:43:57 GMT
One thing that sticks in my mind is Evans saying words to the effect of 'I thought I'd go round to see what she looks like who my mate had gone with' . Quite why the fcuk he'd feel the need to do that I just don't know unless he was planning on slamming her back doors in because I for one certainly never gave a fuck as to what the woman looked like when my mates used to pick them up. I wouldn't be surprised if Cheds mate was in on it too and was expecting him to show up.
|
|
|
Post by boothenboy75 on Jan 12, 2015 13:52:09 GMT
The police could easily prosecute without her participation. I can understand your points about the texts that followed and not understanding how 1 of the men could be found guilty but not the other but to say that the prosecution only happened as she woke with regrets the next morning is quite clearly wrong. Do you think maybe they didn't convict McDonald because they were together when they went back to the hotel so harder to prove beyond reasonable doubt that it was not consensual? Where as Evans then turns up, has sex with her and then decides it's best to leave via a fire escape. Not so hard to distinguish between one and the other is it? Yep, I'm with the jury and judges on this one but don't let you armchair legal experts let that get in your way ;) I agree. As none of us were on the jury, it's impossible to say, but I assume that the brief courtship (if it can be called that) which McDonald had with the woman just about cast enough doubt in the jury's mind for it to return a not guilty verdict. That Evans received a text from McDonald, turned up, had sex with her and left via a fire escape doesn't leave much room for doubt as the law stands if the woman says she can't remember what happened and the judge decides she's drunk. I struggle to see whats so difficult to understand about that? The chances of his conviction being overturned are practically nil. Seeing how he was denied the right to appeal, I don't now see how they can overturn his conviction unless theres some dramatic new piece of evidence that hasn't been released. Should he fail to get his conviction overturned then I believe he should have no future in the game.
|
|