Ched Evans

Innocent or guilty he should now be allowed to play football. He's served his time that the courts saw fit to sentence him to. That's his punishment finished now, other sex offenders will return to they old job without any problems. It may not be perfect but that's how our justice system works. If he's a danger then he wouldn't have been let out. He was convicted of a terrible terrible thing but he now a free citizen like the rest of us let him get on with his life the way he chooses.

Sex Offenders wouldn't be allowed to return to professional jobs like Policeman, Accountant, Teachers or any job involving children, women or other vulnerable groups.

Being allowed to play professional football at any family friendly club (and that should be all of them) would be totally inappropriate for a convicted rapist.

Yes he can get low skilled employment but he has to understand that due to the potential risk which exists due to his previous behaviour that some jobs are now out of reach to him forever. This is not picking on him specifically as it applies to ALL convicted rapists.

Regardless of my own opinion of whether he is guilty or not, I think it should stick to what the courts say. If it isn't overturned, I can understand why no club would want him. If it is overturned, I wouldn't be opposed to having him at Cardiff on a trial bases, and give him the chance to prove he is good enough

Heard it all now someone wishing a convicted sex offender all the best & a mod calling it post of the month

Double standards are rife on here. I recently got banned for calling someone an alien, someone who likes to dish it out and cant take it back id like to add, and yet weve got a thread supporting a convicted rapist. The mind boggles.

Heard it all now someone wishing a convicted sex offender all the best & a mod calling it post of the month

Double standards are rife on here. I recently got banned for calling someone an alien, someone who likes to dish it out and cant take it back id like to add, and yet weve got a thread supporting a convicted rapist. The mind boggles.

Spot on polo

justice system is a bit of a joke ive totally lost my faith in it. is he guilty? who knows, there will always be a question mark over it so even if its overturned it doesnt mean he is innocent

Heard it all now someone wishing a convicted sex offender all the best & a mod calling it post of the month

He shouldn't have been convicted ,this is totally different to other cases he's been stitched up

Heard it all now someone wishing a convicted sex offender all the best & a mod calling it post of the month

He shouldn't have been convicted ,this is totally different to other cases he's been stitched up

I've used that 1 myself plenty of times wez

Heard it all now someone wishing a convicted sex offender all the best & a mod calling it post of the month

He shouldn't have been convicted ,this is totally different to other cases he's been stitched up

I've used that 1 myself plenty of times wez

Heard it all now someone wishing a convicted sex offender all the best & a mod calling it post of the month

He shouldn't have been convicted ,this is totally different to other cases he's been stitched up

I've used that 1 myself plenty of times wez

Heard it all now someone wishing a convicted sex offender all the best & a mod calling it post of the month

He shouldn't have been convicted ,this is totally different to other cases he's been stitched up

I have read the court transcripts and on the evidence I would have convicted him if I had been on the Jury. His 'new' evidence seems based on rubbishing the woman's name.

Evans simply doesn't get the fact that he entered that hotel room and found a very drunk vulnerable individual and that does-not constitute consent to sex. He is a horrible individual and how anyone can have sympathy for him is beyond me.

Heard it all now someone wishing a convicted sex offender all the best & a mod calling it post of the month

He shouldn't have been convicted ,this is totally different to other cases he's been stitched up

I have read the court transcripts and on the evidence I would have convicted him if I had been on the Jury. His 'new' evidence seems based on rubbishing the woman's name.

Evans simply doesn't get the fact that he entered that hotel room and found a very drunk vulnerable individual and that does-not constitute consent to sex. He is a horrible individual and how anyone can have sympathy for him is beyond me.

Also I very much doubt that if he hadn't been a footballer(no doubt) paying his lawyers an extortionate amount of money it wouldn't get a second glance

Innocent or guilty he should now be allowed to play football. He's served his time that the courts saw fit to sentence him to. That's his punishment finished now, other sex offenders will return to they old job without any problems. It may not be perfect but that's how our justice system works. If he's a danger then he wouldn't have been let out. He was convicted of a terrible terrible thing but he now a free citizen like the rest of us let him get on with his life the way he chooses.

Sex Offenders wouldn't be allowed to return to professional jobs like Policeman, Accountant, Teachers or any job involving children, women or other vulnerable groups.

Being allowed to play professional football at any family friendly club (and that should be all of them) would be totally inappropriate for a convicted rapist.

Yes he can get low skilled employment but he has to understand that due to the potential risk which exists due to his previous behaviour that some jobs are now out of reach to him forever. This is not picking on him specifically as it applies to ALL convicted rapists.

Tony. Being a football as it stands isn't one of these jobs sex offenders are allowed to return as the law won't allow it. If football was one of these jobs then this thread won't exist. So as it stands he's legally allowed to be a football bt currently be discriminated against because of a criminal past. Which in itself is illegal. How can rehabilitated criminals then expect to stay rehabilitated when the community they are in don't obey the law themselves.
In one of you post tony you talk about how the jury and court convicted him. Which is correct for you to point out these facts of law but he now continued and done everything that this court has ordered him to, which didn't include being a football after rehabilitation and release. You can't use the court and facts just when they suit you, you can't have it both ways when it suits you. You either support and belive in the law like you stated in one post or you don't.

It's a very emotive subject which can cause people views and opinions to be blurred. But the laws the law everyone entitled to they defence and then to continue they life within laws allowing said life. If we start changing that for emotive reason to discriminate against people then the whole justice system is in danger of collapsing.

In answer to the question, No I wouldn't have Ched at this club purely because he is shite!!!

In relation to his trial I feel it was a bit farcical

If he is guilty because the young lady couldn't consent as she was to intoxicated why wasn't the other guy prosecuted as well? If she's to drunk to consent to Ched then she's to drunk to consent to the other guy. The court found one innocent and the other guilty how does that add up?

In answer to the question, No I wouldn't have Ched at this club purely because he is shite!!!

In relation to his trial I feel it was a bit farcical

If he is guilty because the young lady couldn't consent as she was to intoxicated why wasn't the other guy prosecuted as well? If she's to drunk to consent to Ched then she's to drunk to consent to the other guy. The court found one innocent and the other guilty how does that add up?

She consented to go back to the hotel with other guy. Obviously not for a coffee.

In answer to the question, No I wouldn't have Ched at this club purely because he is shite!!!

In relation to his trial I feel it was a bit farcical

If he is guilty because the young lady couldn't consent as she was to intoxicated why wasn't the other guy prosecuted as well? If she's to drunk to consent to Ched then she's to drunk to consent to the other guy. The court found one innocent and the other guilty how does that add up?

She consented to go back to the hotel with other guy. Obviously not for a coffee.

yeah, ched snuck in through the back door, doesnt mean she didnt consent of course, but there is a difference between the two cases

Was just about to jump on you then 1948 ........but you deleted your comment

Was just about to jump on you then 1948 ........but you deleted your comment

Just as well then, I heard your a right fat b*stard.

All jokes aside I wish him all the best in his appeal IF he's innocent, regardless of the result I don't want him anywhere near a Wales or Cardiff shirt. Fact is we will never know if he's innocent or guilty and its up to the courts to decide the truth.

Was just about to jump on you then 1948 ........but you deleted your comment

You two will be getting a room next

Was just about to jump on you then 1948 ........but you deleted your comment

Just as well then, I heard your a right fat b*stard.

All jokes aside I wish him all the best in his appeal IF he's innocent, regardless of the result I don't want him anywhere near a Wales or Cardiff shirt. Fact is we will never know if he's innocent or guilty and its up to the courts to decide the truth.

getting your story straight were you fella? schoolboy error posting then deleting buddy seriously nor do I want him near the club I'm with you on that one.

Was just about to jump on you then 1948 ........but you deleted your comment

You two will be getting a room next

Wez I've said il buy old 1948 a jar down the Cornwall anytime he fancies

Was just about to jump on you then 1948 ........but you deleted your comment

You two will be getting a room next

I think he fancies me

In answer to the question, No I wouldn't have Ched at this club purely because he is shite!!!

In relation to his trial I feel it was a bit farcical

If he is guilty because the young lady couldn't consent as she was to intoxicated why wasn't the other guy prosecuted as well? If she's to drunk to consent to Ched then she's to drunk to consent to the other guy. The court found one innocent and the other guilty how does that add up?

She consented to go back to the hotel with other guy. Obviously not for a coffee.

yeah, ched snuck in through the back door, doesnt mean she didnt consent of course, but there is a difference between the two cases

Why is there a difference? She admitted she did not drink anymore after getting to the hotel and had sex with both males. So why is she able to consent to one male but not the other?

Well there we go the prosecutor has just said on SSN that even if they overturn his appeal they will be seeking a retrial speaks volumes in itself GUILTY as fook

Well there we go the prosecutor has just said on SSN that even if they overturn his appeal they will be seeking a retrial speaks volumes in itself GUILTY as fook

of course the prosecutor is going to say that though


Doesnt mean he's more or less guilty than he was before

Well there we go the prosecutor has just said on SSN that even if they overturn his appeal they will be seeking a retrial speaks volumes in itself GUILTY as fook

of course the prosecutor is going to say that though


Doesnt mean he's more or less guilty than he was before

Well there we go the prosecutor has just said on SSN that even if they overturn his appeal they will be seeking a retrial speaks volumes in itself GUILTY as fook

Can't legally retrial him it's final this one read it somewhere yesterday

In answer to the question, No I wouldn't have Ched at this club purely because he is shite!!!

In relation to his trial I feel it was a bit farcical

If he is guilty because the young lady couldn't consent as she was to intoxicated why wasn't the other guy prosecuted as well? If she's to drunk to consent to Ched then she's to drunk to consent to the other guy. The court found one innocent and the other guilty how does that add up?

She consented to go back to the hotel with other guy. Obviously not for a coffee.

yeah, ched snuck in through the back door, doesnt mean she didnt consent of course, but there is a difference between the two cases

Why is there a difference? She admitted she did not drink anymore after getting to the hotel and had sex with both males. So why is she able to consent to one male but not the other?

Because she says she remembers agreeing going back to the hotel with the one player in the knowledge they were going to have sex.

What she doesnt remember agreeeing to was some weirdo hiding in a cupboard hell bent on joining in.

Just cos you dont drink anymore doesnt make you less pissed especially when the fresh air hits you.

In answer to the question, No I wouldn't have Ched at this club purely because he is shite!!!

In relation to his trial I feel it was a bit farcical

If he is guilty because the young lady couldn't consent as she was to intoxicated why wasn't the other guy prosecuted as well? If she's to drunk to consent to Ched then she's to drunk to consent to the other guy. The court found one innocent and the other guilty how does that add up?

She consented to go back to the hotel with other guy. Obviously not for a coffee.

yeah, ched snuck in through the back door, doesnt mean she didnt consent of course, but there is a difference between the two cases

Why is there a difference? She admitted she did not drink anymore after getting to the hotel and had sex with both males. So why is she able to consent to one male but not the other?

Because she says she remembers agreeing going back to the hotel with the one player in the knowledge they were going to have sex.

What she doesnt remember agreeeing to was some weirdo hiding in a cupboard hell bent on joining in.

Just cos you dont drink anymore doesnt make you less pissed especially when the fresh air hits you.

I think there is cctv showing her picking up a pizza and walking fine that was not shown at the trial ,they are arguing that if she was that drunk she couldn't of done that

Well there we go the prosecutor has just said on SSN that even if they overturn his appeal they will be seeking a retrial speaks volumes in itself GUILTY as fook

of course the prosecutor is going to say that though


Doesnt mean he's more or less guilty than he was before

Where did I say he was more guilty than before?please explain fella

Well there we go the prosecutor has just said on SSN that even if they overturn his appeal they will be seeking a retrial speaks volumes in itself GUILTY as fook

of course the prosecutor is going to say that though


Doesnt mean he's more or less guilty than he was before

Where did I say he was more guilty than before?please explain fella

First of all i didnt say that you said that


however, You think because the prosecutor said that it "speaks volumes" as to his guilt, when infact it doesnt alter his actual guilt or innocence