PistoldPete2 Posted October 6, 2015 Share Posted October 6, 2015 Depending on the timeline, even if a club in this country is still unwilling to give him a job even after a Conviction is quashed, then he will be able to play abroad. At the moment he can't even do that as it would be in breach of his release terms. I would be surprised if , assuming the conviction is quashed, some clubs don't offer him something. The sponsors would probably be in breach of contract if theyd pulled out in those circumstances, and they were the ones stopping sheffield Utd , Oldham etc. as as for him suing someone , quite likely I would think given the effect it has had on him. I doubt there will be repercussions for the lady, I hope not. Maybe questions to be asked about the prosecution, maybe even his original defence team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PistoldPete2 Posted October 6, 2015 Share Posted October 6, 2015 the victim was coerced by the police. She knew nothing about a rape and by the sounds of it had her head turned by the prospect of compensation. I think that may be unfair. The compo she was allegedly referring to in her tweets was compo for having her name being revealed, not any compo she may have got following the alleged rape. Hardly sheds her in a good light tho, but I don't think that should be relevant to the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LesterRam Posted October 6, 2015 Share Posted October 6, 2015 handed the car in on Friday, £535 damage. Still not sorted yet in terms of the insurance. As someone accused of something bad, having it over you consumes your every thought. No way, if you was innocent of something, would you sit back and accept it yeah your right, he should clear his name but forget football, why would a football club take a punt on a player like this with sponsorship and tarnish a reputation, on another note, I do question why a woman would want to stay with ched evans after having sex with another woman.what was the damage then, that doesn't sound a lot ? did you lose your waiver with the car hire firm ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mostyn6 Posted October 6, 2015 Share Posted October 6, 2015 yeah your right, he should clear his name but forget football, why would a football club take a punt on a player like this with sponsorship and tarnish a reputation, on another note, I do question why a woman would want to stay with ched evans after having sex with another woman.what was the damage then, that doesn't sound a lot ? did you lose your waiver with the car hire firm ?I had a £900 excess, which I could have paid extra £180 a fortnight to remove. I've been hiring for the whole of this year, so in theory, I have saved way over the £900 by not paying for the refundable excess. The car needs a new wing, and some cosmetics to repair scrapes down the near-side doors.As for Ched, my own personal opinion is that if he is guilty, so was the other geezer, as the whole conviction was built upon the victim being too pissed to consent. So you either do the other bloke who had sex with her, or you do neither of them. If he is innocent, which, based on the evidence on his site, (cctv footage doesn't show her as too pissed), then perhaps it is an injustice to find him guilty of rape. It also opens up the debate of why are men accountable for their actions when drunk, but in this case, the woman (who clearly spent ages actively trying to pull player A) not accountable for her actions and not capable of consenting? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LesterRam Posted October 6, 2015 Share Posted October 6, 2015 I had a £900 excess, which I could have paid extra £180 a fortnight to remove. I've been hiring for the whole of this year, so in theory, I have saved way over the £900 by not paying for the refundable excess. The car needs a new wing, and some cosmetics to repair scrapes down the near-side doors.As for Ched, my own personal opinion is that if he is guilty, so was the other geezer, as the whole conviction was built upon the victim being too pissed to consent. So you either do the other bloke who had sex with her, or you do neither of them. If he is innocent, which, based on the evidence on his site, (cctv footage doesn't show her as too pissed), then perhaps it is an injustice to find him guilty of rape. It also opens up the debate of why are men accountable for their actions when drunk, but in this case, the woman (who clearly spent ages actively trying to pull player A) not accountable for her actions and not capable of consenting?I don't know what line of business your in mate but why don't you just lease a vehicle ?regarding our chad, I don't know the ins and outs of this court hearing but why would the court release this other guy if he was guilty, maybe he should have been less promiscuous and this must be a lesson learnt to all footballers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mostyn6 Posted October 6, 2015 Share Posted October 6, 2015 I don't know what line of business your in mate but why don't you just lease a vehicle ?regarding our chad, I don't know the ins and outs of this court hearing but why would the court release this other guy if he was guilty, maybe he should have been less promiscuous and this must be a lesson learnt to all footballers.that's my point. How can player A be guilty if player B isn't. The point of the prosecution was that the victim was in no fit state to consent, both admitted having sex with her consecutively, so whatever verdict one got, the other should.As for leasing question, my personal finances are not brilliant, and my business hasn't been running long enough to get a lease. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RamNut Posted October 6, 2015 Share Posted October 6, 2015 This is a bizarre thread.discussing the merit of a rape conviction and apeal on the one hand, and Mostyns no claims on the other.i'm slightly more interested in the latter tbh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LesterRam Posted October 6, 2015 Share Posted October 6, 2015 that's my point. How can player A be guilty if player B isn't. The point of the prosecution was that the victim was in no fit state to consent, both admitted having sex with her consecutively, so whatever verdict one got, the other should.As for leasing question, my personal finances are not brilliant, and my business hasn't been running long enough to get a lease.yes but who went first and who had sloppy seconds ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheDeadlySaul Posted October 6, 2015 Share Posted October 6, 2015 Considering that Oldham were interested in signing him when he was guilty for the rape convictions, but stopped because of media pressure then I could see a club signing him if he wasn't guilty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LesterRam Posted October 6, 2015 Share Posted October 6, 2015 Considering that Oldham were interested in signing him when he was guilty for the rape convictions, but stopped because of media pressure then I could see a club signing him if he wasn't guilty. do you rate him then ? seen him a few times but wasn't impressed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheDeadlySaul Posted October 6, 2015 Share Posted October 6, 2015 do you rate him then ? seen him a few times but wasn't impressed.His last season of playing football he got 29 goals in league one so he is obviously talented and I'm sure some club wouldn't mind signing him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PistoldPete2 Posted October 6, 2015 Share Posted October 6, 2015 yes but who went first and who had sloppy seconds ?that's not the point.... If proesecution case was she consented to one but not the other then that would be fine. But as the poster says their case was she couldn't remember anything... So she was too p1ssed to consent. one can't be guilty and the other innocent.the circumstances when too drunk to consent are applied was taken too far in this case. If a bloke plies a girl with drink then maybe yeah... But in this case they didn't give her any drinks at all. And I think you really have to be very p1ssed indeed to be able to say you allowed something to happen and for that not to be consent. The fact she couldn't reember anything might suggest she was very p1ssed, but the footballers couldn't have known at the time that she would forget everything... I mean I have never ever been so drunk that I can't remember anything at all. I would certainly remember having sex with two blokes I think, coz that's never happened to me either. Or one bloke I should quickly add. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LesterRam Posted October 6, 2015 Share Posted October 6, 2015 that's not the point.... If proesecution case was she consented to one but not the other then that would be fine. But as the poster says their case was she couldn't remember anything... So she was too p1ssed to consent. one can't be guilty and the other innocent.the circumstances when too drunk to consent are applied was taken too far in this case. If a bloke plies a girl with drink then maybe yeah... But in this case they didn't give her any drinks at all. And I think you really have to be very p1ssed indeed to be able to say you allowed something to happen and for that not to be consent. The fact she couldn't reember anything might suggest she was very p1ssed, but the footballers couldn't have known at the time that she would forget everything... I mean I have never ever been so drunk that I can't remember anything at all. I would certainly remember having sex with two blokes I think, coz that's never happened to me either. Or one bloke I should quickly add. well yes that was my thinking, who was first (consented) and second (without consent), I just put it my cack handed way !!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ovis aries Posted October 6, 2015 Share Posted October 6, 2015 His careers over anyway, even if he is now found innocent, he'll still carry a label that'll put most if not all clubs off himWhy ?,what will the label say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anon Posted October 6, 2015 Share Posted October 6, 2015 Why ?,what will the label say.Rapist, same as Dave Jones' label says paedo despite the case against him being dismissed.I'm not saying it's right, in fact it's abhorrent, but that's what will happen. Of course that doesn't mean he won't be able to play professionally, it just means he'll have to put up with abuse from the stands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaintRam Posted March 22, 2016 Share Posted March 22, 2016 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mostyn6 Posted March 22, 2016 Share Posted March 22, 2016 in other news, the bloke who crashed into me on the roundabout admitted liability and I got my money back. I know @RamNut was more interested in this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Highgate Posted March 22, 2016 Share Posted March 22, 2016 It always seemed like a dodgy rape conviction. The victim couldn't seem to remember whether she had given 'consent' or not. I understand that if you are too drunk, then consent can't reasonably be given, but what's too drunk, and can another drunk person tell, what too drunk is? And does the fact that you can't remember the following day prove you were insensible at the time of the 'rape'. So many grey areas, it difficult to know how anything was proven. However if the conviction is quashed, and he is then innocent of rape, he is still 'guilty' of behaving in an incredibly creepy manner in my opinion, but then that's not a crime i guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomsdubs Posted March 22, 2016 Share Posted March 22, 2016 New evidence apparently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ovis aries Posted March 24, 2016 Share Posted March 24, 2016 On 6 October 2015 at 13:22, Anon said: Rapist, same as Dave Jones' label says paedo despite the case against him being dismissed. I'm not saying it's right, in fact it's abhorrent, but that's what will happen. Of course that doesn't mean he won't be able to play professionally, it just means he'll have to put up with abuse from the stands. When you gave evidence at the trial did you tell them you where hiding in the cupboard? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.