Least surprising news of the year

[Pokster]

True. But either way it was always a decision which seemed to me to be very unclear, it could have gone either way as what is or is not, consent, is rather nebulous.

Given that, I was shocked at how vehement the condemnation of young Chad was given that an appeal process was underway and he seemed to have a very strong argument. It's almost as though some small-minded muppets quite liked the chance to jump up on their soapbox and come across all holier than thou.

Or perhaps he had been found guilty and they thought it was OK to comment... seeing as he served 2 1/2 yrs for this I don't think his defence was that clear cut to begin with.

Good luck to him, still shocked his g/f stood by him no matter what he had done

[World's End Stella]

Or perhaps he had been found guilty and they thought it was OK to comment... seeing as he served 2 1/2 yrs for this I don't think his defence was that clear cut to begin with.

Good luck to him, still shocked his g/f stood by him no matter what he had done

I think his defence was very clear cut, he always said that she consented. Given that he always denied his guilt, that he had a reasonable defence, that the consent aspect of any rape conviction is a difficult one to prove and that an appeal process was underway; if I was going to 'comment' I would have held back a little on the sanctimony.

Many did. Many others did not. The latter now look a right set of muppets imo. I'm thinking primarily of those people who openly petitioned for him to not be signed by a professional football club even though his appeal was underway.

[Pokster]

I think his defence was very clear cut, he always said that she consented. Given that he always denied his guilt, that he had a reasonable defence, that the consent aspect of any rape conviction is a difficult one to prove and that an appeal process was underway; if I was going to 'comment' I would have held back a little on the sanctimony.

Many did. Many others did not. The latter now look a right set of muppets imo. I'm thinking primarily of those people who openly petitioned for him to not be signed by a professional football club even though his appeal was underway.

Well until recently he was a convicted rapist... so not wanting your FC to sign him seems a normal thing to me.... would your company be happt to employ a convicted rapist if he was out on appeal?

[World's End Stella]

Well until recently he was a convicted rapist... so not wanting your FC to sign him seems a normal thing to me.... would your company be happt to employ a convicted rapist if he was out on appeal?

My issue isn't with the football clubs, it's with the people who felt it sensible to protest publicly against him while he was in the process of appealing his conviction. And, personally, I would only consider someone to be truly convicted of anything once the judicial process was fully complete.

And, as we know, in this case it was not. It's not unreasonable to expect the muppets to have considered this.

[Sir C]

Well until recently he was a convicted rapist... so not wanting your FC to sign him seems a normal thing to me.... would your company be happt to employ a convicted rapist if he was out on appeal?

Are you saying that convicted criminals, having served an approrpiate sentence, should be denied employment for life?

Golly.

[Burney]

I think his defence was very clear cut, he always said that she consented. Given that he always denied his guilt, that he had a reasonable defence, that the consent aspect of any rape conviction is a difficult one to prove and that an appeal process was underway; if I was going to 'comment' I would have held back a little on the sanctimony.

Many did. Many others did not. The latter now look a right set of muppets imo. I'm thinking primarily of those people who openly petitioned for him to not be signed by a professional football club even though his appeal was underway.

So let's say it's another offence - kiddie-fiddling or child porn, maybe. If your club were threatening to sign someone convicted of it, would you be perfectly happy for them to do so on the basis that he was appealing his conviction and had been punished enough?

Of course not - and neither would the thousands of knuckle-draggers who've been shouting his case all this time. He'd be untouchable. And that's the problem: there's a double standard in operation because it was 'just' rape and she was 'just a slag'.

[World's End Stella]

So let's say it's another offence - kiddie-fiddling or child porn, maybe. If your club were threatening to sign someone convicted of it, would you be perfectly happy for them to do so on the basis that he was appealing his conviction and had been punished enough?

Of course not - and neither would the thousands of knuckle-draggers who've been shouting his case all this time. He'd be untouchable. And that's the problem: there's a double standard in operation because it was 'just' rape and she was 'just a slag'.

My view would be that neither my football club nor myself should do or say anything until the judicial process was completed. There is a difference between that viewpoint and saying 'Ched Evans is a convicted rapist who should never work in football again'.

[Burney]

My view would be that neither my football club nor myself should do or say anything until the judicial process was completed. There is a difference between that viewpoint and saying 'Ched Evans is a convicted rapist who should never work in football again'.

So in other words you're claiming you'd be happy for your club to employ a convicted *****phile and let him run out on the pitch with a Junior Gunners, etc, etc?

Bullshít would you.

[Sir C]

So in other words you're claiming you'd be happy for your club to employ a convicted *****phile and let him run out on the pitch with a Junior Gunners, etc, etc?

Bullshít would you.

Hold on, if said peedofiddler had served the appropriate sentence, surely he is entitled to return to his profession? Isn't prison supposed to be about rehabilitation?

You and your mates round the podiatrist's tonight with the flambeaux, are you?

[Burney]

Hold on, if said peedofiddler had served the appropriate sentence, surely he is entitled to return to his profession? Isn't prison supposed to be about rehabilitation?

You and your mates round the podiatrist's tonight with the flambeaux, are you?

This isn't about the individual's entitlement, it's about the attitudes that surround the two crimes and the way in which said attitudes would affect the likelihood of his future employment. In the case of a nonce, there is absolutely fùck all chance that any club would re-employ him just because he said he wasn't guilty and was appealing - let alone a chance that thousands of fans would take up his case.

And yet, because it's rape, the attitudes are totally different. That discrepancy worries me not a little, since it speaks of some nasty underlying attitudes.