 | Forum
Reply | So then, Redturds
at 18:20 9 Jan 2015
Yeah, Phil can't change it.
Reddy may die fairly soon I'm afraid. |
| Forum
Reply | Please sign
at 18:19 9 Jan 2015
Two big ass... umptions there.
Namely that you'll go up and that we'll go down. |
| Forum
Reply | Ched Evans to Oldham Athletic
at 18:13 9 Jan 2015
Why do YOU think chedevans.com editted the text to look more "palatable"? Please give some rational answers.
Evading being seen; clue - he didn't enter via the fire escape. He spoke to the duty guy at reception. So he wanted to evade being seen exiting, but not entering the hotel.
I somehow get the feeling that like many "lads", Ched could give a live interview admitting it and you'd still not believe that fact or try to blame the victim.
You with limited knowledge know more than the jury of court of appeal. |
| Forum
Reply | So then, Redturds
at 18:10 9 Jan 2015
LOL.
Revell is a decent striker, someone Slade signed several times before who is a physical handful. Fee was what, 175k?
Of those more valuable strikers, Jones is on and off; Le Fondre is struggling and Macheda has been woeful. Three strikers who on paper have goals in them.
If Tan spent millions, then that's wrong. Look for cheaper options then that too is wrong. |
| Forum
Reply | Ched Evans to Oldham deal is off!
at 17:58 9 Jan 2015
Yes, I have read it. Parlay didn't.
I think it's fairly obvious you fail to see any actions. Maybe a trip to SpecSavers may help? |
| Forum
Reply | Ched Evans to Oldham Athletic
at 17:57 9 Jan 2015
LOL.
Rushing to the hotel after he got a text from Donaldson saying "I'm with a bird" - which on chedevans.com became "I'm with a woman".
Leaving via a fire escape rather than the conventional exiting of a hotel, ie through the f***ing front door. Which common sense would indicate was an attempt to evade beng seen.
Misrepresenting himself to get a key to the room when he could haven you know, knocked on the door.
All part of a pattern.
The tweets were misrepresented.
All the tweets referred to was what the victim would do if she had money - holidays for friends etc.
Ched Evans family claimed this to me magic proof she was a gold digger ergo lying about being raped. Except those tweets could hve been any kind of conversation between friends, ie what would you do if you won the lottery. The victim's tweets were shown in total isolation without any other tweets from the conversation hence context was completely removed. Hmm, ever wondered why?
Equally, media organisations have themselves pointed out the victim has turned down offers for her story. Which destroys the gold digger narrativ chedevans.com have cynically tried to portray.
Apart from all that... |
| Forum
Reply | Please sign
at 17:51 9 Jan 2015
Awww, our littler, littler brothers ( possibly even cousins ) are miffed.
Bless 'em.
Can understand them being antsy, playing in a rugby stadium. Well, actually being in Newport tbh. |
| Forum
Reply | Ched Evans to Oldham deal is off!
at 17:49 9 Jan 2015
Your point was that a case is only proven to the satisfaction of a jury, not proven absolutely.
Ergo you cannot prove any court case; that's the logical conclusion of your point.
Much like Parlay, you are focusing purely upon one point in total isolation as if that proves/disproves the case. It doesn't one iota, something Parlay failed to grasp since he didn't read the f***ing transcripts.
The one point, in combination with Ched's actions that night, established guilt to the satisfaction of a jury. It was proven to the standards of the legal system in this country.
Yet others seem to want a higher burden of proof. |
| Forum
Reply | Ched Evans to Oldham Athletic
at 17:44 9 Jan 2015
There was a trial with evidence provided. The discrepency was just one part of it. When you factor in other elements of Evans' behaviour, it establishes a pattern. A pattern which indicated Evans lied and cast doubt on Donaldson's claim of consent for Ched.
The fact the chedevans website, funded by his girlfriends daddy has cynically misrepresented tweets as "evidence", only partially shown CCTV cutting out the damning parts as to the girls state that night et al only fits that same pattern the jury believed to be the truth.
The drug abuse was a misnomer. She did not deny drugs; only difference was the timescale when the drugs were taken. The drugs had zero effect upon that night or the case; it was a tactic the defence used to try to establish the innocence of Evans. Nothing more, nothing less. |
| Forum
Reply | Ched Evans to Oldham deal is off!
at 17:38 9 Jan 2015
Dear god.
So nobody has ever been proven guilty of any crime whatsoever based upon that logic.
Let's have no prisons, no prisoners just a Mad Max-esque wasteland because nobody can ever be proven of anything to the satisfaction of some. |
| Forum
Reply | Ched Evans to Oldham Athletic
at 17:30 9 Jan 2015
The post you quoted contains your answer.
Both defendants gave a conflicting statement when it came to consent for Ched.
One therefore was lying. When other elements of Ched's behaviour were factored in, it becomes obvious why he was found guilty and Donaldson wasn't. |
| Forum
Reply | Ched Evans to Oldham deal is off!
at 17:26 9 Jan 2015
It was proven to a juries satisfaction, ergo it was therefore proven that he did.
That's how the law works in criminal cases.
For an appeal to succeed, it has to be determined the original decision was fundamentally incorrect and set aside as a consequence.
That's how the law works in criminal case appeals. |
| Forum
Reply | Ched Evans to Oldham Athletic
at 17:24 9 Jan 2015
Donaldson was found innocent as there was reasonable doubt.
Evans was found guilty because reasonable doubt was not found. Ched claimed *he* asked for consent; Donaldson said he was the one who asked for consent on Ched's behalf.
Add in other elements of Evans behaviour, then reasonable doubt was not established. |
| Forum
Reply | Ched Evans to Oldham deal is off!
at 17:22 9 Jan 2015
She could have tapdanced on the top of the Eiffel Tower too, eh?
Maybe it was Ched's own words that convicted him eh - given he and Donaldson gave different stories. |
| Forum
Reply | Ched Evans to Oldham deal is off!
at 17:20 9 Jan 2015
In your opinion.
Because if it was CLEARLY not proven then he would have been found not guilty or had his appeal upheld. |
| Forum
Reply | Ched Evans to Oldham deal is off!
at 17:18 9 Jan 2015
You're aware not being able to remember/ being incapable of consent means consent wasn't given, right? |
| Forum
Reply | Ched Evans to Oldham deal is off!
at 17:12 9 Jan 2015
I'm sure you'll provide the "new" appeal with your groundbreaking evidence of innocence then given both a jury and appeal disagree with you. |
| Forum
Reply | Ched Evans to Oldham Athletic
at 14:11 9 Jan 2015
That's an entirely different scenario, you do realise that? And indeed utterly irrelevant.
Johnny Mcdodgy in your example is NOT PRESENT at the incident. It then needs to be proven he was indeed present for a conviction ( or should be amongst other things ). You'd expect no prosecution under the situation with hopefully very few miscarriages of justice.
In many rape cases, there is no debate the accused is PRESENT. A "get out of jail card" is, "well, she said yes". In that situation, you're automatically saying, well there's doubt so acquit. So then no rape would ever get a conviction under your perfect situation, right?
If you magically seem to think there was no evidence against Ched, then ask yourself why he was convicted and Donaldson wasn't. Spot the differences between their actions and work out why; and work out why the appeal failed. |
| Forum
Reply | So then, Redturds
at 14:06 9 Jan 2015
I don't think, given the comments made and the way he manipulated the media, that Mackay can really comment about the vindictiveness of Tan. Indeed, I'm sure many fans would be pretty physical with Mackay if he made racist comments about them, after all.
Fact is, Mackay and Moody were running to a sympathetic press who magically went quiet when the actions of M&M were exposed. Nobody can blame Tan for being f***ing livid. |
| Forum
Reply | So then, Redturds
at 14:02 9 Jan 2015
Gwyn made a tit of himself. Asked that question, said Tan should specify 20k ST sales. Dalman said no, they would not ask for it. Gwyn tried to ask again, was shot down big time. |
| | reddythered
|
Site Scores| Forum Votes: | 63 | | Comment Votes: | 0 | | Prediction League: | 0 | | TOTAL: | 63 |
|
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.