Clearly, he's greased the right palm in order to have the thing dealt with before his playing career is over.Originally Posted by number2
Good move.
For me, he can play football. Let's face it, the bird will still be going out getting legless.
For me the Lee Hughes crime was so much worse than this case.
But he was still allowed to play and I can honestly say that i wished someone would have run on the pitch and slotted him.
His crime was despicable.
I can see Evans playing again and for the blunts because the hype will all be over and done with very soon.
The Lee Hughes case is far worse, and yet I don't recall it creating the same level of controversy. I think as long as it isn't acceptable to believe that there are different degrees of rape (as there are different degrees of many other crimes) we can never have a sensible debate about this.
The difference this time IMO, is social media. It wasn't as widespread at the time of the Hughes case
Training again,,,,,,,,,
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/29980279
Pleased I took time to read the whole thread. Footballers are incredibly stupid as is this young woman. Really not sure how I feel after reading it. Very sad and sordid the whole affair. What a way to ruin your life.
I don't think he should be able to play again. There are many professions were various criminal acts mean you can no long return to them whether you have served your time or not.
It's even worse that he still shows no remorse and refuses to accept accountability.
Adidas and John Holland Sales should consider their sponsorship in my eyes. Would you want a convicted rapist wearing your logos?
3 patrons have resigned since it came out he was to be allowed to train with them.
As a wednesday fan I obviously hate the blades but hoped they'd show some shreds of decency. The way they've handled this situation has been appalling and they just can't win regardless now.
Ignoring the 'should he be allowed' I genuinely think united should have just cut ties and wished him all the best. As it stands, they're now embroiled in a really bad PR situation - especially after saying they won't bow down to 'mob rule'
I think that the idea is that consent was impossible. Consent require certain capacities, and being extremely drunk means that one doesn't have them.
Best wishes,
Bob
^ And yet the sex she had moments before with another footballer was deemed consensual, despite her claiming she couldn't remember anything from the time she was in a takeaway prior to meeting either of them.
I still don't get it. Surely they should both have been locked up?
If you read all the case details it makes sense^ And yet the sex she had moments before with another footballer was deemed consensual, despite her claiming she couldn't remember anything from the time she was in a takeaway prior to meeting either of them.
I still don't get it. Surely they should both have been locked up?
So what happens if his appeal is successful? In the eyes of the law he would be innocent,,,
I did read all the details at the time, and again recently. The victim testified that she couldn't remember meeting either footballer or anything after the takeaway they were all at. She couldn't remember any sexual activity whatsoever. That was in fact the whole point of the Crown's case - she was too drunk to consent to anything.
If she was too drunk to even remember meeting either footballer and cannot remember any sexual acts whatsoever, it stands that she was unable to consent to sex with either of them, therefore they should both be guilty.
If I stabbed someone with the same level of alcohol in my blood, would I be deemed innocent on the basis I was too drunk to comprehend my actions?
I think she was the one that got 'stabbed' if I remember my basic human biology class...
No is the answer to your question, that's not how it works. I'm not saying that the victim was a shining pillar of purity - she apparently lied about her heavy cocaine use to the police even when confronted with her tox reports and allegedly boasted of hitting the jackpot after the event via SMS / Social media. In addition she freely admitted that the amount she had to drink that night was far less than a usual night and demonstrated plenty of actions after her drinking that would indicate rational and reasoned thought - paying with the correct change in the takeaway, sending texts to her friends and so on...
My point is that seeing as the law has decided that she wasn't able to give consent to person a) through reasons of intoxication, she could not possibly have been able to give consent to person b) whilst in the same state.
Last edited by kungfugerbil; 13th November 2014 at 19:23.
Perhaps I used a bad example, but my point is, alcohol was not inflicted upon the victim, by the perpetrator and therefore is irrelevant to the event imho.
Her behaviour was judged to be irractic. How many other times had she ended up on her back, drunk? I'd say plenty, but as soon as she discovered they were £60 a day painters and the likes she deleted their number.
^ I don't disagree. Rather like the boy who cried wolf, if the Lady was, for example and purely hypothetically, the sort who ends up in a different Travelodge every Friday and Saturday hoovering up Cardiff's finest white powder with a selection of half-wits, drunkards and ne'er-do-wells, what made this event different?
Still, the law has decided that consensual sex can only take place when not intoxicated, so *both* tweedledum and tweedledee should have swung from the rafters... A dangerous precedent I think?
Dangerous?
I don't think I've ever been sober - bring on the class action
I have no recollection of sleeping with either of the two men charged (albeit only one being convicted). Can I make a claim?
Seriously - isn't there a full review of the trial taking place at present?
It's just a matter of time...
There's a certain irony in this, I imagine the lady in question could have collected a few bob from the papers had Max Clifford not been banged up
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/39697804
I wonder if Jess Ennis will be watching?
In principle, I think a convicted person who's done their time deserves the right to have a second chance.
Only one, though, if he falls again in any significant way, then I'd be all for him getting the greenhouse treatment repeatedly on his next very long stay...
From what I recall of this case, following it from the outside, there were some unusual circumstances, but I think, overall, it's a reflection of how stupid amounts of money can make stupid people think they're untouchable...
M.
Don't understand why United are doing this personally - and that's from a season ticket holder who was there when he was playing pre-trial.
From a pure goal-scorer point of view there are better options and it just adds unnecessary noise and debate. A win on Sunday means United finish on 100 points and a deserved promotion - that's what people should be talking about, not Evans.
He deserves a career chance, no ill will to him, but he's not currently good enough!
A fair assessment I would say,
Sent on the run.
"Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. The third time it's enemy action."
'Populism, the last refuge of a Tory scoundrel'.
I understand what you're saying but... his conviction was quashed, wasn't it?
Rightly or wrongly I don't know and don't care but if that is the case then he served 2.5 years he shouldn't have and is technically innocent of the crime.
*caveat* I just replied to the quoted post without looking into the case so my recollection of such a seismic event in the news maybe hazy.
'Against stupidity, the gods themselves struggle in vain' - Schiller.
As you're seemingly on an upward curve, this decision is baffling and just not needed. It puts a bit of a negative spotlight on the club again when things are definitely far more positive.
I genuinely can't get my head around why United would do this. He's not exactly set the world alight at Chesterfield and the strikers you have now offer you a lot more.
I know - Billy's got 29 this season!
The club should be looking upwards, not across and down. Meh.
Why does signing a footballer put a negative spotlight on a club?
They do it all the time. Every club in the 92 will sign a footballer in the Summer. Why should this one be treated any different?
Because every footballer hasn't had 170,000 people sign a petition against their return. Or high profile celebs speak out against them in the national media. Or remain the focus of hate campaigns.
Read again - I don't want United to sign him primarily as he's not good enough and the club should be aiming higher. Like it or not however, there will be unwanted press coverage that surrounds him wherever he goes.
I appreciate the reason you don't want him is a footballing one. Perfectly acceptable to have that opinion as a fan and one which, in this case, I happen to agree with. But I fail to see how signing someone who's not guilty of something and, in fact, who had a gross miscarriage of justice against him, in any way brings a negative on the club? The poor kid just wants to play football. He should be hailed for his courage and bravery in fighting to clear his name against a tide of abuse, accusation and public outcry. It would have been far easier to hide away.
I missed that!
In that case (especially as he was cleared on retrial), I don't see there's any issue.
He's not guilty, except by trial by social media, so he should be free to ply his trade (as he should have if he'd served his sentence if the initial verdict wasn't overturned).
Given the retrial acquittal, why is it even up for discussion?
Sure he's guilty of dodgy morals and poor judgement, but he's a professional footballer - Does anyone REALLY expect anything more?
M
I agree, his conviction was quashed and he was found not guilty on his retrial.
He is therefore free to carry out his profession without harassment or prejudice.
Unfortunately mud sticks as they say and his reputation will probably be permanently tarnished.
On a footballing note, I really couldn't care less what Sheffield United do as long as Leeds take six points off them next season. (I've resigned myself to finishing seventh again this srason)
He's always going to have this hanging over him and there will always been a divisive opinion.
He's certainly a signing United don't need.
McCabe just won't let it go. Depending on the structure there is the merest glimmer of a goals and appearance based deal but you could say that of a hundred strikers who are out of contract or in league 2 or below.
I'll be surprised if he passes his medical and if I was in Chris Wilder's position that's where I'd be looking for a way out.
Exactly this. He is innocent, was wrongly convicted and has suffered tremendous personal loss as a result.
As for what you expect of professional footballers, since one moved in next door, I have gathered that they don't exactly operate within society's norms. The pressures are great and the money (for most) is barely adequate consolation for living in that environment. Why people 'look up' to them is beyond my understanding.
Regardless of the rights and wrongs of this case the terrace choirmasters will be composing and rehearsing some chants they deem suitable should he play again.
F.T.F.A.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote