As I understand it, he went to a hotel room he had booked because his mate texted him that he 'had a bird'...went into the room to watch them having sex while his brother tried to film it trhough the window, then had oral and then unprotected sex with a complete stranger who he did not even speak to before, during or after the act, after his mate had finished..and then sneaked out a back door to avoid CCTV. He is quite an unpleasant man so that is how I will regard him.
It didn't make as much sense on screen as it did in my head. I've tried to amend it so see if that makes a difference. Don't worry if not because it was a fairly weak attempt to link the topic to a point about people holding back on their views. It didn't really work but I went with it anyway. Thought it might end another Groundhog thread.
@aloysius said:
There's a creeping sense that decisions made by the judiciary should be fair game for armchair experts following the Ched Evans and Article 50 cases. I profoundly disagree - anyone hinting there's "no smoke without fire" in the case of the former should think long and hard about the consequences of undermining the British system of justice.
@Bledlow_Blue said:
Plenty of 'innocent' people receive abuse for their questionable morals. Don't see why Evans would be any different.
I believe there is an expression along the lines of "let he who is without sin throw the first stone". Would be nice to think that Wycombe fans will bear that sentiment in mind at the Proact Stadium.
Chris, there is a world of difference between pushing for an investigation into safety of conviction of a man who may have been falsely convicted and refusing to accept that a man found not guilty is not in fact innocent. If you have evidence to that effect, fine pass it to the police, but otherwise it is grossly unfair.
Casual , almost feral sex is not a crime and sadly in some sections of the community is fairly commonplace. If you wish to boo Evans for that, fair enough but you should equally boo many in the crowd and probably more often than not more than one of the players in each match.
I agree that there is a difference between the two (accepting the justice system when it finds someone guilty, and when it does not do so) but I'm free to have my opinion either way.
The truth of the matter will always exist independently of the conclusions of the justice system either way.
I'd like to think that in most cases the justice system and the truth are aligned. But I don't believe they are in all cases, and so some healthy scepticism is appropriate.
I would say especially in cases where there is an imbalance of power between the two sides of a case.
I am not sure you are free to have an opinion - or not an informed one at that. By definition you have not heard all the evidence or judged the witnesses body language etc. You have only been exposed t whatever is reported in newspapers and that may or may not be objective or the full story.
its why you have to rely on the 12 members of the jury who have and therefore in the best place to judge to make a rational decision.
There is no place whatsoever IMHO for so-called "healthy scepticism" about whether a man found not guilty is in fact guilty.
Of course they are, in part at least Righty. Jurors are human beings tasked with assessing the evidence presented to them by witnesses. They use all the normal human methods to assess those witnesses veracity.
I wonder if you accept that there is a possibility that someone who had committed a crime may be found not guilty at a trial?
The burden of proof for criminal conviction (which may end in sending someone to prison) is rightly different to the burden of proof in other areas, such as disciplinary procedures at a workplace where the threshold is the 'balance of probabilities' rather than 'reasonable doubt'. I certainly wouldn't want to send someone to prison on the basis of my opinion. But I am able and totally within my rights to hold an opinion different from that of the court.
Who knows, it might even be the same opinion as a juror.
Of course there is that possibility. It is a price we pay for justice.
Unless you have been present for every day and heard every piece of evidence, your opinion of the guilt or innocence of an accused cannot possibly be as well informed as that of the jury.
On principle if the jury acquits a man, I consider him innocent. I am rather sad you feel the need to rely on your own less informed opinion rather than trust the jury.
@DevC I think we're all free to have an opinion about anything. @mooneyman Mr Evans alleged sexual habits weren't alleged...they were in his statement and given in evidence and admitted to (he had done it before and was very sorry when his girlfriend found out) so I think those are actual sexual habits. I consider him a low-life...but he's an innocent low-life now so we can all just boo him for being on the opposite team.
@devc but as we know, the jury wasn't deciding if he was probably guilty, they were deciding if they were sure enough if he was guilty to send him to prison. Those are two very different things, especially in rape cases that are notoriously difficult to prove.
I wouldn't want him sent to prison without being convicted, but the judgement doesn't necessarily convince me that he is an innocent man.
I do agree that I wouldn't like to see Wycombe fans chanting anything about it at the Chesterfield game. The first time I heard Wycombe fans chanting about Ched Evans was away at Sheffield Wednesday - I think it would have been the last day of our most recent relegation season. It was clear the Wycombe fans were not chanting out of respect for the victim or for womens rights but just as another line of banter, and as a way of ingratiating themselves with the Wednesday fans. It was not a positive experience, although the day as a whole was despite our relegation.
Well Chris, I fundamentally agree with you on one thing and disagree on another.
For me if you refuse to accept the convention that a man is innocent until proven guilty and prefer instead a convention of "well he wasn't found guilty but based on a few press reports I think he probably was" , you have undermined the very basis of our legal system. God help us all and God help you if ever you are falsely accused of anything.
I totally agree with the shameful use of sad events as an acceptable subject for banter - whether songs about Hillsboro, Munich, McCormick or Evans. invariably the songs say far more about those singing than it does about the subject.
@DevC Sorry but reading his own account of his own actions I think I am perfectly entitled to think of him as a nauseating example of a human being. That has nothing to do with any legal case or innocence of any crime. If I met him in the pub I would like to think I would have a civilised discussion about my low opinion of his moral position and would be interested in his current views. Though I would not be optimistic that it would change any opinion I may have on him
Just to take it back a notch, is RITM really trying to suggest that people "holding back" on their full opinions on here, makes them as bad as Ched Evans?
This forum is becoming a joke thanks to Dev's bullshit. I blocked him and i urge you all to do the same so we don't have to put up with a stupid troll who offers nothing to this site except utter shit. I wouldn't mind if he attended games now and again but he ruins this forum with his stupid comments. It's time he stuck to being a pervert on a train rather than talking about something he knows nothing about. I don't get to many games through ill health but when i do i support the team joining in the singing and cheering a goal something Dev would only moan about if we scored.
"Unless you have been present for every day and heard every piece of evidence, your opinion of the guilt or innocence of an accused cannot possibly be as well informed as that of the jury."
Says the man who pontificates on all things Wycombe while rarely actually seeing a game.
@MindlessDrugHoover I'll admit I had a little chuckle! The problem is that young Chedwyn's own words are pretty damning about his predatory behaviour that evening, which I would hazard a guess the vast majority, if not all, members of this board could comfortably condemn without any hint of hypocrisy.
A court of law ruled that his actions could not be described as 'rape', but I and many others reserve the right to hold Evans in complete contempt for what he has admitted to doing in his version of events.
Unless you have been present for every day and heard every piece of evidence, your opinion of the guilt or innocence of an accused cannot possibly be as well informed as that of the jury.
Which, amazingly, was written by the very person who started this thread and in his very first post let us all know his opinion on the guilt or innocence of the accused.
@MindlessDrugHoover said:
"Unless you have been present for every day and heard every piece of evidence, your opinion of the guilt or innocence of an accused cannot possibly be as well informed as that of the jury."
Says the man who pontificates on all things Wycombe while rarely actually seeing a game.
Comments
Yep RITM, that last paragraph would shame a non natural speaker. What on earth are you trying to say there!?
You're compounding the confusion I think @Malone ! Unless I ought to know what a non natural speaker is. Not hi-fi perhaps.
As I understand it, he went to a hotel room he had booked because his mate texted him that he 'had a bird'...went into the room to watch them having sex while his brother tried to film it trhough the window, then had oral and then unprotected sex with a complete stranger who he did not even speak to before, during or after the act, after his mate had finished..and then sneaked out a back door to avoid CCTV. He is quite an unpleasant man so that is how I will regard him.
It didn't make as much sense on screen as it did in my head. I've tried to amend it so see if that makes a difference. Don't worry if not because it was a fairly weak attempt to link the topic to a point about people holding back on their views. It didn't really work but I went with it anyway. Thought it might end another Groundhog thread.
What about the consequences of not questioning?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birmingham_Six
I believe there is an expression along the lines of "let he who is without sin throw the first stone". Would be nice to think that Wycombe fans will bear that sentiment in mind at the Proact Stadium.
Chris, there is a world of difference between pushing for an investigation into safety of conviction of a man who may have been falsely convicted and refusing to accept that a man found not guilty is not in fact innocent. If you have evidence to that effect, fine pass it to the police, but otherwise it is grossly unfair.
Casual , almost feral sex is not a crime and sadly in some sections of the community is fairly commonplace. If you wish to boo Evans for that, fair enough but you should equally boo many in the crowd and probably more often than not more than one of the players in each match.
I agree that there is a difference between the two (accepting the justice system when it finds someone guilty, and when it does not do so) but I'm free to have my opinion either way.
The truth of the matter will always exist independently of the conclusions of the justice system either way.
I'd like to think that in most cases the justice system and the truth are aligned. But I don't believe they are in all cases, and so some healthy scepticism is appropriate.
I would say especially in cases where there is an imbalance of power between the two sides of a case.
Are the alleged sexual habits of Ched Evans any worse than the likes of George Best, Ryan Giggs, John Terry etc?
I am not sure you are free to have an opinion - or not an informed one at that. By definition you have not heard all the evidence or judged the witnesses body language etc. You have only been exposed t whatever is reported in newspapers and that may or may not be objective or the full story.
its why you have to rely on the 12 members of the jury who have and therefore in the best place to judge to make a rational decision.
There is no place whatsoever IMHO for so-called "healthy scepticism" about whether a man found not guilty is in fact guilty.
I hope real life court cases are not judged on body language.
Not sure if that's an opinion or not
Of course they are, in part at least Righty. Jurors are human beings tasked with assessing the evidence presented to them by witnesses. They use all the normal human methods to assess those witnesses veracity.
@DevC I disagree.
I wonder if you accept that there is a possibility that someone who had committed a crime may be found not guilty at a trial?
The burden of proof for criminal conviction (which may end in sending someone to prison) is rightly different to the burden of proof in other areas, such as disciplinary procedures at a workplace where the threshold is the 'balance of probabilities' rather than 'reasonable doubt'. I certainly wouldn't want to send someone to prison on the basis of my opinion. But I am able and totally within my rights to hold an opinion different from that of the court.
Who knows, it might even be the same opinion as a juror.
Of course there is that possibility. It is a price we pay for justice.
Unless you have been present for every day and heard every piece of evidence, your opinion of the guilt or innocence of an accused cannot possibly be as well informed as that of the jury.
On principle if the jury acquits a man, I consider him innocent. I am rather sad you feel the need to rely on your own less informed opinion rather than trust the jury.
@DevC I think we're all free to have an opinion about anything. @mooneyman Mr Evans alleged sexual habits weren't alleged...they were in his statement and given in evidence and admitted to (he had done it before and was very sorry when his girlfriend found out) so I think those are actual sexual habits. I consider him a low-life...but he's an innocent low-life now so we can all just boo him for being on the opposite team.
@devc but as we know, the jury wasn't deciding if he was probably guilty, they were deciding if they were sure enough if he was guilty to send him to prison. Those are two very different things, especially in rape cases that are notoriously difficult to prove.
I wouldn't want him sent to prison without being convicted, but the judgement doesn't necessarily convince me that he is an innocent man.
I do agree that I wouldn't like to see Wycombe fans chanting anything about it at the Chesterfield game. The first time I heard Wycombe fans chanting about Ched Evans was away at Sheffield Wednesday - I think it would have been the last day of our most recent relegation season. It was clear the Wycombe fans were not chanting out of respect for the victim or for womens rights but just as another line of banter, and as a way of ingratiating themselves with the Wednesday fans. It was not a positive experience, although the day as a whole was despite our relegation.
Well Chris, I fundamentally agree with you on one thing and disagree on another.
For me if you refuse to accept the convention that a man is innocent until proven guilty and prefer instead a convention of "well he wasn't found guilty but based on a few press reports I think he probably was" , you have undermined the very basis of our legal system. God help us all and God help you if ever you are falsely accused of anything.
I totally agree with the shameful use of sad events as an acceptable subject for banter - whether songs about Hillsboro, Munich, McCormick or Evans. invariably the songs say far more about those singing than it does about the subject.
Enough said on this subject now.
Especially as I couldn't afford to buy any witnesses.
@DevC Sorry but reading his own account of his own actions I think I am perfectly entitled to think of him as a nauseating example of a human being. That has nothing to do with any legal case or innocence of any crime. If I met him in the pub I would like to think I would have a civilised discussion about my low opinion of his moral position and would be interested in his current views. Though I would not be optimistic that it would change any opinion I may have on him
Just to take it back a notch, is RITM really trying to suggest that people "holding back" on their full opinions on here, makes them as bad as Ched Evans?
Dear oh lore!
This forum is becoming a joke thanks to Dev's bullshit. I blocked him and i urge you all to do the same so we don't have to put up with a stupid troll who offers nothing to this site except utter shit. I wouldn't mind if he attended games now and again but he ruins this forum with his stupid comments. It's time he stuck to being a pervert on a train rather than talking about something he knows nothing about. I don't get to many games through ill health but when i do i support the team joining in the singing and cheering a goal something Dev would only moan about if we scored.
I'd rather keep him than you, but luckily it's not a choice we have to make.
There is a limit to how much time you can spend on a train!
Dev will still embarrass himself with his drooling over a teenage girl i'm sure.
"Unless you have been present for every day and heard every piece of evidence, your opinion of the guilt or innocence of an accused cannot possibly be as well informed as that of the jury."
Says the man who pontificates on all things Wycombe while rarely actually seeing a game.
Game, set and match!
Good work @MindlessDrugHoover
The best part is setting up a thread to waddle all over the subject, then deciding he's had enough himself
@MindlessDrugHoover I'll admit I had a little chuckle! The problem is that young Chedwyn's own words are pretty damning about his predatory behaviour that evening, which I would hazard a guess the vast majority, if not all, members of this board could comfortably condemn without any hint of hypocrisy.
A court of law ruled that his actions could not be described as 'rape', but I and many others reserve the right to hold Evans in complete contempt for what he has admitted to doing in his version of events.
My favourite bit of this thread was this...
Which, amazingly, was written by the very person who started this thread and in his very first post let us all know his opinion on the guilt or innocence of the accused.
That is checkmate! Surely no comeback possible?