AFCCOVENTRY
Well-Known Member
Read some Sheff U fans seem to think Coventry are after Ched Evans after a bid for him came in yesterday afternoon...
No he hasn't, he's been found 'not guilty', they're not the same thing. All 'not guilty' means is that there wasn't sufficient evidence of crime to find someone guilty beyond reasonable doubt.But he has been declared innocent.
I still wouldn’t sign him though.
Not under Twat Law he's not. Under Twat Law he is very much guilty.But he has been declared innocent.
I still wouldn’t sign him though.
No he hasn't, he's been found 'not guilty', they're not the same thing. All 'not guilty' means is that there wasn't sufficient evidence of crime to find someone guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
The trial was a sham in which the poor woman was subjected to all sorts of vile shite about her sexual history, dragging her name through the mud, which had zero bearing on the case or whether or not she was the victim of a crime. It should never have been permitted in a court of law and clearly had an impact on the case. Read anything about the evidence given in court and tell me that Evans isn't scum of the highest order and has no place in a family football club such as ours.
"The woman told the jury she woke up naked in a hotel room in Rhyl, north Wales, in May 2011 with no memory of what had happened but fearing that her drinks had been spiked. Friends encouraged her to go to the police, and officers found out that the room in which she woke up had been booked and paid for by Evans. He was questioned, and both he and his friend and fellow footballer Clayton McDonald said they had consensual sex with the woman.
The prosecution said she could not possibly have consented, as she was too intoxicated. She has never alleged that Evans or McDonald raped her.
In court, Evans admitted that he lied to get the key for the hotel room and did not speak to the woman before, during or after sex. He left via a fire exit. It also emerged that Evans’s younger brother and another man were trying to film what was happening from outside the room."
This. He’s a c****, but not a criminalInnocent until proven guilty is what we have in this country. Therefore if he's not guilty he is innocent. We also don't carry out vigilante justice because we don't agree with a court's decision. No matter how much we think we're Sherlock Holmes.
The guy hasn't been convicted of anything and as such should be treated as innocent. Anything else is a perversion of our justice system.
I'd agree with the first part but change the second to 'he doesn't have any criminal convictions'This. He’s a c****, but not a criminal
The guy is replying to a post which says he was declared innocent, which is not true. There was a similar reaction when he was found ‘not guilty’; the dark fruits brigade slammed the woman for ‘lying’. Therefore in this instance I think it’s important to note the difference.Innocent until proven guilty is what we have in this country. Therefore if he's not guilty he is innocent. We also don't carry out vigilante justice because we don't agree with a court's decision. No matter how much we think we're Sherlock Holmes.
The guy hasn't been convicted of anything and as such should be treated as innocent. Anything else is a perversion of our justice system.
No he hasn't, he's been found 'not guilty', they're not the same thing. All 'not guilty' means is that there wasn't sufficient evidence of crime to find someone guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
The trial was a sham in which the poor woman was subjected to all sorts of vile shite about her sexual history, dragging her name through the mud, which had zero bearing on the case or whether or not she was the victim of a crime. It should never have been permitted in a court of law and clearly had an impact on the case. Read anything about the evidence given in court and tell me that Evans isn't scum of the highest order and has no place in a family football club such as ours.
"The woman told the jury she woke up naked in a hotel room in Rhyl, north Wales, in May 2011 with no memory of what had happened but fearing that her drinks had been spiked. Friends encouraged her to go to the police, and officers found out that the room in which she woke up had been booked and paid for by Evans. He was questioned, and both he and his friend and fellow footballer Clayton McDonald said they had consensual sex with the woman.
The prosecution said she could not possibly have consented, as she was too intoxicated. She has never alleged that Evans or McDonald raped her.
In court, Evans admitted that he lied to get the key for the hotel room and did not speak to the woman before, during or after sex. He left via a fire exit. It also emerged that Evans’s younger brother and another man were trying to film what was happening from outside the room."
Innocent until proven guilty is what we have in this country. Therefore if he's not guilty he is innocent. We also don't carry out vigilante justice because we don't agree with a court's decision. No matter how much we think we're Sherlock Holmes.
The guy hasn't been convicted of anything and as such should be treated as innocent. Anything else is a perversion of our justice system.
But he has been declared innocent.
I still wouldn’t sign him though.
and her stated evidence under oathHe was also convicted on very murky evidence in the first place. To prove the victim was drunk, they used CCTV of her stumbling at a takeaway IIRC.
He went through the hassle of a retrial after he was convicted and served his jail time. That to me, at least says he was desperate to clear his name, and he was found ‘not guilty’ in a retrial. I put my faith in the rule of law and the criminal justice system (the bedrock of western civilisation), not a few feminist journalists who want to take this as further ‘proof’ of the boogeyman that is the ‘patriarchy’.
The guy is replying to a post which says he was declared innocent, which is not true. There was a similar reaction when he was found ‘not guilty’; the dark fruits brigade slammed the woman for ‘lying’. Therefore in this instance I think it’s important to note the difference.
Whilst he was found not guilty and absolutely deserves to given the opportunity to play football again, I don’t believe he warrants signing, purely for footballing reasons.
AFAIK the courts don't declare innocence. The verdicts are Guilty or Not Guilty. Innocence is a moral judgement outside of the court's purview.
and her stated evidence under oath
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?