Ched and Sheffield United.

[MikeSB]

[quote="AlexLeicester"]Hughes is now non-league with Forest Green Rovers, after many years of 'controversy'; McCormick started back at Truro City (non-league) and there was quite a furore when he rejoined Plymouth and was made captain.

Evans is a different case, I believe. He is in dispute with British law as he states that the 12-man jury were wrong and he is innocent. But he is not an 'alleged' rapist, he is a rapist, he was found guilty. That can be rescinded, but not by him.
The apology argument is not that he should apologised for raping the drunk girl; it is that he should apologise for having intercourse with her when she was drunk and incapable - a fact that is not disputed.
Please. Don't watch Evans's own videos on his own web site - he is bound to only publicise stuff that makes him look good.
What will be on trial is the definition of rape, and if his act is considered not to be rape then the law will have to be changed. God help any young woman

[AstonAlex]

Sorry, Mike, but we are parting company here. The decisions of the courts are, as you say, not infallible and people have been hanged (not hung) in the past, one good reason why we don't have the death penalty of course.

However, the current state of play is that he was found guilty in a fair and open trial of the crime and must be treated as such unless and until the judicial process decides otherwise and, if all his appeals still find him guilty then he must be considered as such. I agree that the verdict may appear contrary where the two accused are concerned but that was the verdict reached by the jury on the evidence presented. Furthermore, Evans first appeal failed to overturn that verdict.

If the Criminal Courts Review Tribunal overturn the verdict then, yes, he must be considered innocent of the crime, although far from innocent of the unsavoury events of the evening. If they uphold the verdict then he is still guilty and any subsequent decisions made about his career mus

[AlexLeicester]

I agree with AA. :-)

It is fundamental to British law that a jury's verdict be accepted, therefore Evans is a convicted rapist.
As I understand it he is trying to overturn that verdict, but until then he remains a convicted rapist.

My concern, apart from the danger to British law if the rape laws are diluted by this unpleasant business, is that Evans is still seeking to be a role model to young men and boys. He must be barred from this. He is on the *** Offenders Register. If he was a teacher (another clear role model) he would be disbarred from teaching.
Being quite good at what you do is not a reason for trying to ride roughshod over moral and ethical elements.

[MikeSB]

Yep, I know its not hung but hanged!

But hanged makes no sense and being hung seems to fit.

The rape laws are a mess and need clarifying and why so few accused are either not taken to trial and as there are differences in homicide, there are are differences in rape. There has to be a clear difference between the alleyway rapist as mentioned by earlier and one of say date rape when a woman claims she didn't say yes to her boyfriend etc. I think the lad found not guilty here was very foolish to text Evans that he was in the Motel room with a girl. Why did the girl go there with him? And Evans was really foolish to go there as well. I really hope she didn't use the offensive words that were claimed to have been said but this was NOT the alleyway type crime and in many ways, he may as well raped the girl in that situation given all the public anger and flak.

Its certainly polarised opinion whereby an alleyway rape wouldn't have done but still denying him chance of playing fo

[AlexLeicester]

The jury thought that having intercourse with a drunk and incapable woman was rape. The fact that it was in a hotel not an alleyway is semantics and geography.
The woman was in a hotel. *** anywhere else at that time would not have been with her!

Sure Evans can play football again, but not professionally in front of thousands of impressionable young people.

[MikeSB]

Why was she drunk? Did they spike her drink? Did she go voluntarily with him to his bedroom? If she was that drunk, how could she be absolutely certain about anything that happened at the time?

Do you remember the surname of the chap was that was hung/hanged in place of Christy who did do them? He was hung/hanged eventually.

[alexmick]

Why was she drunk? Did they spike her drink? Did she go voluntarily with him to his bedroom? If she was that drunk, how could she be absolutely certain about anything that happened at the time?

Do you remember the surname of the chap was that was hung/hanged in place of Christy who did do them? He was hung/hanged eventually.

My first post on this thread and it has nothing whatsoever to do with the man who was found guilty of rape.

Yes, Timothy Evans was hanged in 1950 for murder. Christie then was subsequently hanged in 1953 for the murder of Beryl Christie (his wife, although he did commit more murders besides.

It was largely due to Ludovic Kennedy's book; Ten Rillington Place that Evans was granted a posthumous pardon, although a new book by Jonathan Oates places grave doubts about some of the evidence at the time of the crime. It also picks large holes in the evidence used by Kennedy to make his case. I am not say

[AstonAlex]

Timothy Evans (god I hate coincidences like that!) was the man hanged for Christie's offences, all of which is a bit of a distraction in this case.

Rape is rape no matter where it happened or the state of the victim; these are things that are taken into account during the sentencing; indeed, I think you will find 5 years is a fairly light sentence for the offence.

The distinction in this case is between whether the woman was able to say yes, not whether she was able to say no, and there is a big difference in that. I will not defend MacDonald's actions in having *** with a drunk woman (if indeed she was drunk) but, as has also been said, do you then go along to the room, invited by your mate, and "hop on", as it were? That clearly suggests that she did not give consent to the second man, in this case Evans.

And as for having your brother and mates filming it on their mobiles and egging you on through the window, well don't get me started.

[MikeSB]

[quote="AstonAlex"]Timothy Evans (god I hate coincidences like that!) was the man hanged for Christie's offences, all of which is a bit of a distraction in this case.

Rape is rape no matter where it happened or the state of the victim; these are things that are taken into account during the sentencing; indeed, I think you will find 5 years is a fairly light sentence for the offence.

The distinction in this case is between whether the woman was able to say yes, not whether she was able to say no, and there is a big difference in that. I will not defend MacDonald's actions in having *** with a drunk woman (if indeed she was drunk) but, as has also been said, do you then go along to the room, invited by your mate, and "hop on", as it were? That clearly suggests that she did not give consent to the second man, in this case Evans.

And as for having your brother and mates filming it on their mobiles and egging you on through the window, well don't get me star

[valefaninpeace]

I suspect Hughes is one of those players like Joey Barton and Luke Rodgers - you love them when they play for you, hate them when they are on the other side!

Hughes played against us for several clubs and was always a niggly wind up merchant; he was probably the same against the Vale!! I know Rodgers was just that both for and against the Reds!!

True. I hated him when he played against us. Partly because he always scored, and that sodding dance.