comment by Bãlès (U3582)
posted 1 minute ago
I would feel exactly the same if we were discussing Joe Bloggs being convicted of theft if the evidence against him was as sketchy as it seems to be in this case.
---
I'm not being deliberately obtuse, I just don't believe that for a second.
As if you look out for cases of injustice wherever they appear.. how's Gary McKinnon getting on?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I haven't said I'm some kind of investigative journalist with an opinion of every case, the thread's about Ched Evans.
If he's saying he's not guilty you are in agreement with him, to debate the point you are supporting it.
What's hard to get?
If he's innocent there's no problem, surely?
comment by Harrys accountant (U1141)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Bãlès (U3582)
posted 1 minute ago
I would feel exactly the same if we were discussing Joe Bloggs being convicted of theft if the evidence against him was as sketchy as it seems to be in this case.
---
I'm not being deliberately obtuse, I just don't believe that for a second.
As if you look out for cases of injustice wherever they appear.. how's Gary McKinnon getting on?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I haven't said I'm some kind of investigative journalist with an opinion of every case, the thread's about Ched Evans.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Just Ched and Joe then?
We'll see if it even gets to the court of appeal.
I'm off to watch the game
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
comment by The Guvnor III V.I.K- Give me a scotch.I'm starving (U12889)
posted 15 hours, 17 minutes ago
Going around in circles here.
Fact is none of us know what
happened.He could be innocent or guilty the truth will never be known.
If you think hes guilty fair enough.If you think otherwise fair enough also.
===
Spot on. I can accept that no one apart from Ched, McDonald and the bird will ever really know the truth. But in a criminal case, this is why reasonable doubt comes in. If you cant be sure then on way you should have a guilty verdict.
at this thread.
Bales doesn't see what we are saying as he clearly doesn't see shade, just black and white... the end.
comment by Harrys accountant (U1141)
posted 17 hours, 44 minutes ago
He kicked a car but it's OK ........
the jury got it wrong.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The only time a jury has ever been wrong, just so happens to be in the instance of Convicted Vandal Weare
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
comment by The Guvnor III V.I.K-Give me a scotch.I'm starving (U12889)
posted 1 hour, 15 minutes ago
Bales is going around in circles and beating a dead horse.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
As if i'm repying to myself.
All i've done is, eloquently and politely I might add, point out that for all your spurious doubts over the conviction a high court judge has ruled it safe.
If you want to criticise the verdict that's on you, but I can't see a good reason for it. None of you are egal experts, throughout this debate there have been repeated errors on the basics of the case and what is happening going forwards.
You refuse to take the jury's verdict, or that of several judges that have a far better informed view of the law and the evidence at hand.
No need to make it personal
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Robben
at people who think they know better, are willing to offer veiled suggestions and promote ideas of her 'smoking crack' because they don't believe the conviction to be sound.
For some reason I expected a reasoned, informed debate, bunch of idiots on here.
I do understand perfectly, I just don't agree.
Is this how you always approach people that don't agree with you?
Wait.. i'm still replying.
Is that me flogging a dead horse or you?
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
"it's sound in law"
No it's not.
And mate, I'm not trying to "bully you off the thread" - stop being a pansy
Robben,
It's the nature of the crime, the criticism that Evans' is somehow being hard done by, the implication that she was 'asking for it' despite a unanimous verditc, despite the denial of appeal..
It's crass in my opinion, why if you think there's a fair chance he might have raped her put forward arguments for his apparent innocence so vigorously? It doesn't make sense to me.
Sign in if you want to comment
Ched Evans (updated update)
Page 34 of 44
35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39
posted on 10/1/15
comment by Bãlès (U3582)
posted 1 minute ago
I would feel exactly the same if we were discussing Joe Bloggs being convicted of theft if the evidence against him was as sketchy as it seems to be in this case.
---
I'm not being deliberately obtuse, I just don't believe that for a second.
As if you look out for cases of injustice wherever they appear.. how's Gary McKinnon getting on?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I haven't said I'm some kind of investigative journalist with an opinion of every case, the thread's about Ched Evans.
posted on 10/1/15
If he's saying he's not guilty you are in agreement with him, to debate the point you are supporting it.
What's hard to get?
If he's innocent there's no problem, surely?
posted on 10/1/15
comment by Harrys accountant (U1141)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Bãlès (U3582)
posted 1 minute ago
I would feel exactly the same if we were discussing Joe Bloggs being convicted of theft if the evidence against him was as sketchy as it seems to be in this case.
---
I'm not being deliberately obtuse, I just don't believe that for a second.
As if you look out for cases of injustice wherever they appear.. how's Gary McKinnon getting on?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I haven't said I'm some kind of investigative journalist with an opinion of every case, the thread's about Ched Evans.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Just Ched and Joe then?
We'll see if it even gets to the court of appeal.
I'm off to watch the game
posted on 10/1/15
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 10/1/15
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 11/1/15
comment by The Guvnor III V.I.K- Give me a scotch.I'm starving (U12889)
posted 15 hours, 17 minutes ago
Going around in circles here.
Fact is none of us know what
happened.He could be innocent or guilty the truth will never be known.
If you think hes guilty fair enough.If you think otherwise fair enough also.
===
Spot on. I can accept that no one apart from Ched, McDonald and the bird will ever really know the truth. But in a criminal case, this is why reasonable doubt comes in. If you cant be sure then on way you should have a guilty verdict.
posted on 11/1/15
at this thread.
Bales doesn't see what we are saying as he clearly doesn't see shade, just black and white... the end.
posted on 11/1/15
comment by Harrys accountant (U1141)
posted 17 hours, 44 minutes ago
He kicked a car but it's OK ........
the jury got it wrong.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The only time a jury has ever been wrong, just so happens to be in the instance of Convicted Vandal Weare
posted on 11/1/15
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 11/1/15
comment by The Guvnor III V.I.K-Give me a scotch.I'm starving (U12889)
posted 1 hour, 15 minutes ago
Bales is going around in circles and beating a dead horse.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This
posted on 11/1/15
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 11/1/15
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 11/1/15
As if i'm repying to myself.
All i've done is, eloquently and politely I might add, point out that for all your spurious doubts over the conviction a high court judge has ruled it safe.
If you want to criticise the verdict that's on you, but I can't see a good reason for it. None of you are egal experts, throughout this debate there have been repeated errors on the basics of the case and what is happening going forwards.
You refuse to take the jury's verdict, or that of several judges that have a far better informed view of the law and the evidence at hand.
No need to make it personal
posted on 11/1/15
^^ legal
posted on 11/1/15
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 11/1/15
Robben
at people who think they know better, are willing to offer veiled suggestions and promote ideas of her 'smoking crack' because they don't believe the conviction to be sound.
For some reason I expected a reasoned, informed debate, bunch of idiots on here.
posted on 11/1/15
I do understand perfectly, I just don't agree.
Is this how you always approach people that don't agree with you?
posted on 11/1/15
Wait.. i'm still replying.
Is that me flogging a dead horse or you?
posted on 11/1/15
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 11/1/15
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 11/1/15
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 11/1/15
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 11/1/15
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 11/1/15
"it's sound in law"
No it's not.
And mate, I'm not trying to "bully you off the thread" - stop being a pansy
posted on 11/1/15
Robben,
It's the nature of the crime, the criticism that Evans' is somehow being hard done by, the implication that she was 'asking for it' despite a unanimous verditc, despite the denial of appeal..
It's crass in my opinion, why if you think there's a fair chance he might have raped her put forward arguments for his apparent innocence so vigorously? It doesn't make sense to me.
Page 34 of 44
35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39