Evans agrees terms with Oldham

Sky Sports say both parties have agreed a deal.

Good.

I wonder if any of the other Oldham players have shown any displeasure towards their bosses over this?

30,000 sign petition against signing him? when did Latics ever get that many fans?

His case was never rape in my view, technically it may amount to rape but when a young girl willingly goes to the hotel room of 2 young guys even under the influence of alcohol and then claims to have had consentual sex with one but non-consentual sex with the other it seems dodgy to say the least and certainly not what i interptret rape to mean. From what i understand there was no signs of force used i.e. cuts or bruising either facially or around the sexual organs as you would expect when a girl is forced to have sexula intercourse against her will (i watch CSI ). So without any physical evidence it was surely her word against his. How did a jury decide it was enough for a rape conviction? What did the other guy say in his evidence?

sexula intercourse

Is that CSI Hawaii you watch?

Must have been lol

I thought it ended up with her accusing both of rape. It seems odd that one got off and the other sent down. It is a bit confusing. Apparently, the law on rape has changed and the onus is on the accused to show that consent was given. Having to sign a lengthy legal document before having sex kind of takes the edge of it for me.

Hell hath no fury......so any woman feeling hard done by can level a charge of rape at a guy by way of them having sex then claiming she said no and the guy has to prove that she is lying? If you make the claim then surely you must have to prove it before destroying somebody's life ffs?

It should be the innocent until proven guilty but this is the wrong way around.

The rape convictions may be lower than they should be, but bending the law like this isn't the right way to go about correcting this. A man is in deep shit these days. A woman can terminate a pregnancy and the man has no right in the matter and now this. In cases of divorce, the kids tend to end up with the mother and the father has to pay maintenance which can leave him virtually penniless especially if he ends up with a new family.

Topdawg wrote:Apparently, the law on rape has changed and the onus is on the accused to show that consent was given. Having to sign a lengthy legal document before having sex kind of takes the edge of it for me.

A pre-nookie 

The accused having to prove consent was given is tantamount to being guilty until proved innocent, which isn't the way our justice system works. Although now it is, it seems.

ManCityMan wrote:Hell hath no fury......so any woman feeling hard done by can level a charge of rape at a guy by way of them having sex then claiming she said no and the guy has to prove that she is lying? If you make the claim then surely you must have to prove it before destroying somebody's life ffs?

Basically, yes.  Look at Craig Charles, he had to put his career on hold because of some woman wrongly crying rape against him and that still follows him around even now - when he had to leave "I'm a Celebrity" because his brother died, there were so many people idiots on facebook saying they were glad because he was a rapist and shouldn't even be on telly.  But what of the women that lie about it, what happens to them?  Well, from what I can tell, absolutely fuck all, even though they're committing purgatory which is supposed to carry a mandatory jail sentence.

The accuser is supposed to be granted anonymity forever whether the accused is convicted or not.

I assume they are committing perjury? Purgatory is where the liars should end up if found out!!

Ha, just seen it. Purgatory!!!

Convicted rapist Ched Evans has issued an apology via the Professional Footballers' Association "for the effects that night in Rhyl has had on many people, not least the woman concerned" but maintains his innocence in relation to his conviction for rape.

ManCityMan wrote:I assume they are committing perjury? Purgatory is where the liars should end up if found out!!

Fuck, I knew it didn't look right 

I still don't know why he isn't looking to resurrect his career abroad. It would be a lot quieter with less sensationalism as there is with the british media. If he has any hope of returning to the English game any time soon then that would be the way to fast track it. If he is waiting for the conviction to be overturned then he may wait years by which time any career he may have had in football will now be virtually non existant.

MoJ (Ministry of Justice) says it's virtually impossible to play abroad as he has to see his probation officer every week. I'm sire it would be possible but he wouldn't have much money left if he had to fly back every week.

Not sure he is allowed to leave the country until he has served his full probationary period of the sentence.

From what I read, they didn't say he couldn't leave the country just that he had to 'sign in' every week.

Isn't the probation only for the first year after release?

ManCityMan wrote:Isn't the probation only for the first year after release?

Yes.

Jim McMahon, leader of Oldham Council, sounded genuinely shocked. ‘In recent days we’ve seen a horrendous “trial by social media” with intimidation, abuse and harassment on a scale that has cast a terrible shadow,’ he said.
‘I am urging people on all sides of this debate to please now take stock, show some restraint and calm.’
Too late. The time to take stock was several days ago, when folk like McMahon were too busy adding their own amendments to the criminal justice system to consider much of anything.

That the fury around the return of Ched Evans has now mutated to such an extent that it is suggested the daughter of an Oldham Athletic director was threatened with rape if Evans was employed, shows the inherent danger when leaders become followers.
McMahon, and his fellow politicians, had the opportunity to stand foursquare behind the tenets of crime, punishment and rehabilitation, but chose easy populism instead.
So now here we are. Ched Evans will not join Oldham after all, so the battle is won; but at what cost? Who will be thrown to the mob next, whose sentence will be morally adjusted on release, to satisfy the public whim?
At a time when McMahon could have taken stock, he instead sniffed the air and told the world: ‘I don’t believe Mr Evans would be a suitable role model and ambassador for the town, or for the long-term reputation of the club.’
He does, however, believe in rehabilitation.
He must, because he said so in the second paragraph of Thursday’s statement, and it is not as if a principle like that would just be tossed in, another empty slogan to appease the masses.

It says something for Britain’s political class when one of the more-rounded evaluations came from Harry Redknapp, manager of Queens Park Rangers.
'I think it’s about getting a second chance,’ Redknapp said on Thursday.
‘People go to prison, unfortunately a lot of them come out and somewhere along the line you’ve got to make a go of your life. What does he do?
'If he goes and works in a supermarket people are going to say “we’ve got a rapist working in the supermarket”.
‘Somewhere he’s got to work, whether that’s in football or elsewhere. He can’t just not be allowed to carry on with his life.’
That ‘unfortunately’ would suggest Redknapp is not a natural bleeding-heart liberal.
Even he can see that society risks painting itself into a corner over Evans, though.
Still, McMahon’s initial stance no doubt got him applause in all the right places, as did the statements by David Cameron, Ed Miliband and Shadow Minister for Sport Clive Efford.
Cameron was still pontificating on Evans on Thursday in stark contrast to his views on Prince Andrew and allegations of underage sex slaves. Asked for his reaction to that story, the Prime Minister refused to comment.
Why should he? It isn’t as if the fifth in line to the throne is a role model.
It’s not as if he’s something very important, like Oldham Athletic’s No 9.

Good article. Where was that from Bluey?

Even the PFA has got itself embroiled further into the mire with Gordon Taylor's comments. Some people are just looking to be offended.

One guess....

Martin Samuels?

Topdawg wrote:Even the PFA has got itself embroiled further into the mire with Gordon Taylor's comments. Some people are just looking to be offended.

Don't get me started on this subject.

All my dipper mates on FB are going ballistic, calling for him to be sacked.

Only two days earlier, they were all calling for freedom of speech over the Paris attacks and claiming you can't mention Allah or Islam for fear of offending......

How ironic.

Topdawg wrote:Martin Samuels?

yep....Samuel writes sense again.

I rarely disagree with Samuels. From the bits I've heard, GT didn't really say anything wrong. Just the mere mention of Hillsborough gets people agitated. He used a poor analogy, that's all.

The interview with GT was played on the Radio this morning.....and he said nothing wrong whatsoever.

As said above, people are just looking to be offended.

And don't get me started on the Scouse whingers of Hillsborough, i'm sick to fuckin death of that story.

blueboy wrote:

Topdawg wrote:Even the PFA has got itself embroiled further into the mire with Gordon Taylor's comments. Some people are just looking to be offended.

Don't get me started on this subject.

All my dipper mates on FB are going ballistic, calling for him to be sacked.

Only two days earlier, they were all calling for freedom of speech over the Paris attacks and claiming you can't mention Allah or Islam for fear of offending......

How ironic.

Well, paint me surprised.  Because that's the only way I would be.  It's astonishing how sensitive people can be these days, in this world where even the C bomb is no longer a no go area on TV, where we watch the hedonism of reality shows like Geordie Shore and Jeremy Kyle, and where no film is interesting unless there's a lot of blood or violence or swearing or gratuitous sex (or preferably all four).  We should be getting less sensitive, not more so.

I've come to the conclusion that the phrase "I'm offended by that" is nothing more than a phrase used to stop other people telling them a truth that they don't want to hear, or as an excuse to behave badly.  I suspect that, 95% of the time, there's no actual offense caused, but in this world of political correctness, it can be bandied about purely to make the other person feel guilty for something they've not actually done.

I don't want to make light of Hillsborough, because it was a horrible tragedy and to make offensive remarks is in severely bad taste.  However, for Liverpool fans to still be so sensitive to a quarter century old tragedy, to the point where the mere mention raises their hackles, is nothing more than a reactionary whinge which, pretty soon, will result in Sheffield Wednesday having no choice but to rename their stadium for fear of a Scouse backlash.  Can you imagine it?  Poor Manish Bhasin will be restricted to saying things like, "Tonight's main game is the Sheffield derby, hosted at Wednesday's ground in Owlerton".  Because you just know some dipper is going to write in and say, "How dare you say 'Hillsborough', you Muslim twat?  Why don't you fuck off back to your own country?"  To which we can all say, "Shut up, you thick Scouse wanker, he's from Leicester!"  And then it's a massive argument over nothing, because someone is "offended".

Taylor said nothing to cause any actual offense to anyone, he merely drew an awkward parallel between the vilified Liverpool fans (who were later found to be the victims) and Evans' current situation, whereby he could end up being persecuted himself.  Granted, it's a shaky analogy at best, but to be offended by that is just bollocks.

Look, I'm going to leave this in the hands of someone a lot more intelligent than myself to sum up:

Isn't Manish from Indian descent you insensitive swine Leo?

Who wrote that piece Leo? Good article, but the scousers will only get pissed off by it and say it's by some red-top journo or Tory-voter wanker.

Yes.  But then I'm not a thick Scouse twat.

I was lumping the thick Scouser in the same bracket as the thick Oldhammers I knew growing up, who would call anyone of brown skin a "paki" even though they were from Bangladesh or India.  But if I've offended you in any way, then fuck off 

Yeah, sort of sums up your point:

https://twitter.com/_manishbhasin/status/530404936576925696

blueboy wrote:Who wrote that piece Leo? Good article, but the scousers will only get pissed off by it and say it's by some red-top journo or Tory-voter wanker.

Apart from the quote at the end, I wrote it.  Unless someone else did and I somehow managed to plagiarise it by the power of thought or osmosis or something.  I do have a tendency to become more eloquent when something rattles me.  I find using big words deflects my inability to argue 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/30742947

Stevie Bruce has his say. Are people going to threaten his family now?

The world is fucking going mad

blueboy wrote:Yeah, sort of sums up your point:

https://twitter.com/_manishbhasin/status/530404936576925696

Yep.  That's it, right there.

The path to enlightenment is strewn with arseholes.

Fucking idiots abound. He'll be caught and prosecuted no doubt.

Topdawg wrote:http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/30742947

Stevie Bruce has his say. Are people going to threaten his family now?

The world is fucking going mad

I think it says something about the madness of the world when Steve Bruce and Harry Redknapp are the voices of reason.  But then we have Gary Neville as a decent pundit, so I suppose we should've seen this coming...

Bloody hell...call you Leo Keats from now on.

It was a well written piece Leo. I always knew it was by your hand...

Seriously...