Ched Evans

Precision is all. He's certainly still pursuing his innocence.

 

Yes but the usual rule is that public figures don't comment on ongoing court cases. Otherwise people are fair game. We can't live in a world where he's protesting his innocence so no one can comment on it.

 

If Miliband is asked a question about it, he's got to answer. Otherwise he'd look like he's siding with Evans. Better, especially in an election year, to err on the side of caution and say it's a bad idea. Same goes for the lot of them.

Any issue this year will be responded to in the safest way possible.

 

I can't be bothered with you Arakel. It is you who does not know what you are talking about since I made no statement about you: I asked you what e-witchunt (sic) you were referring to and went on to ask you other questions, all of which you are incapable or unwilling to answer.

You are guilty of your own last line.

 

lots of people defending the interests of ched evans as a matter of principle because justice is an ideal

lots of (the same) people disparaging the victim on points of common sense because justice isn't perfect

heart-warmingly blatant mindsets here.

 

I'd forgotten this earlier but your post reminded me.

Chris Grayling certainly considered the case was off limits at the weekend and declined to comment specifically on it because of exactly the reason you've given. The case is currently under consideration because Evans has appealed again and it's in the system. An announcement has been made to that effect. So which is it then? It can only be one or the other. If the Secretary of State for Justice thinks it's inappropriate to comment because the case is under consideration again, how come other public figures think it is OK to comment?

 

It's entirely open to him to respond on behalf of Evans if he so wishes (if he should say anything at all - see above). But you're right. They all just trot out, as they would see it, the same bland pc answer. I've defended politicians previously but I'm rapidly losing my faith in any of the current lot. Robots ruled by their 'dont rock any boats - safety first - stay on message' pagers.

 

And there was me thinking that Oldham couldn't stoop any lower after signing Poleon.

 

I've admittedly only done a quick Google but I can't find any reference to him refusing to comment on those grounds. What he is quoted as saying is, "Given the fact that I am responsible for the probation system he is part of, I’m not going to comment on the individual case" which is something entirely different. And perfectly understandable as ultimately when probation make decisions on the people they monitor they do so in the name of the Secretary of State. Do you have another quote in mind?

 

Nope. That was it. I stand corrected.

 

How can anyone take the protests seriously when Luke McCormick continues to ply his trade in the league? I think club sponsors Web Applications UK got it right...

The company's chief executive, Craig Dean, said he believed it would be "unethical" to seek to influence the situation in either direction."To deprive a human being of the right to work in their chosen profession should be a decision taken by a judicial system that dispassionately balances the rights of the individual against that of the society as a whole," he said in a statement.
"There are cases where such rights should be restricted for the good of the whole, but it is not a decision that should be made by an IT company.
"Whether Oldham Athletic choose to employ Ched Evans is a decision for the manager and board of directors of the club. We will not interfere with that decision."

 

Absolutely he has the right idea there.
If he disagrees with the way Oldham are going then he can move his sponsorship elsewhere when it's up for renewal.
Unless the club bring the sponsors name into disrepute they should really take the advertising and stay away from the footballing decisions.

It's would be like Bet 138 forcing us to sign an Asian player.

 

You are "Glamour Model" (sic.) Nicola Mclean and I claim my five pounds. And a signed photograph of you in an erotic outfit of my choosing:

Spoiler

A "saucy" moog costume.

 

McCormick has said sorry for his crime. He has served his time and is thus rehabilitated and can play for Plymouth.
Evans shows no remorse for his crime. He has served his time but he cannot play because he doesn't see the error of his ways.

In my view either both are poor role models, or both should be allowed to get on with their lives. However for some people the concept of remorse is paramount.

 

Just for a day I wish I was.

 

The remorse thing is bull. It's only come up in the last week or so as people seek to justify why they haven't jumped on the McCormick case. If Evans gave up the appeal, (if it's even happening), and said a massive sorry and showed huge remorse do you think it would change the "twittieri"? Not a hope.

 

They'd have to change their tune I think, or look like complete idiots.

 

If Ched thinks he's innocent, he can't really express remorse for anything other than letting down his girlfriend and his family by what was not very praiseworthy behaviour.

I'm always uncomfortable with prisoners who maintain their innocence throughout their sentence being stuck behind bars for longer than those clearly proven guilty. The courts don't always get it right (whether they did in Ched's case, I don't know, but there certainly seems to be room for doubt).

 

How can you truly begin the rehabilitate if you don't acknowledge you did anything illegal in the first place? That would certainly be the rationale.

 

If you truly believe that you've been victimised then why would you?

 

He can believe that certainly. He may well sincerely believe he committed no crime. It doesn't mean he committed no crime.

 

That is true. But if you genuinely think you are a victim of a miscarriage of justice I think you should still be allowed to work (once you have served your sentence) while you fight to clear your name. In that situation you can't show remorse surely?

McCormick was obviously guilty. The family had to chase him for an apology letter (according to the papers). Seems a bit half hearted but apparently that is enough for him to be captain of Plymouth, while Evans is the victim of a witch hunt on twitter because he thinks himself to be innocent.

 

You wouldn't. But then given the point of being in prison and then being released on licence is supposed to be rehabilitation it's no wonder people who continue to protest their innocence are kept inside longer.

 

Of course he can believe it if she was willing and coherent. That's something you can't seem to fathom but she wouldn't be the first.

 

Excuse me? Care to elaborate?

He was found guilty by a jury of his peers. His co-defendant was found not guilty. He had the best legal defence money can buy. The verdict was upheld in the Court of Appeal. As of now he is guilty of rape. Period. That is something you can't seem to fathom.

 

He was there they weren't

 

'Let him have it Chris!'

 

probably why he went to prison and they didn't

 

But, as indicated earlier, what he could do is condemn the trolling of Jessica Ennis, condemn Blades' fans celebrating his status as a rapist in song from the stands and condemn the outing and hounding of his 'victim'. All of those would show him in a better light. None of them would compromise his fight to clear his name.

 

True. Good point.

 

Are these his quiet supporters to which you alluded before

 

No! Good point!

 

How do you know this, may I ask?

 

Looks like he's about to be handed a contract from Oldham.