Ched Evans

You cannot compare Evans to Johnson.

Unfortunately mate, putting our revulsion to one side, no different in the eyes of the law once on the sex offenders register, you can't pick and choose which sex offenders are ok and which are not.
 
You cannot compare Evans to Johnson.

Unfortunately mate, putting our revulsion to one side, no different in the eyes of the law once on the sex offenders register, you can't pick and choose which sex offenders are ok and which are not.

I didn't use the sex offenders list to back my opinion up.

Johnson admitted to grooming a child.

Evans's accuser can't remember whether she agreed to sex or not.

Massive difference.
 
I didn't use the sex offenders list to back my opinion up.

Johnson admitted to grooming a child.

Evans's accuser can't remember whether she agreed to sex or not.

Massive difference.
Stu, totally agree from a morale position, but this was raised in connection about him going back to work, both would be no different in the eyes of the law so you couldn't say it's ok for one and not the other, that's one of the reasons no one has took him on.
 
Stu, totally agree from a morale position, but this was raised in connection about him going back to work, both would be no different in the eyes of the law so you couldn't say it's ok for one and not the other, that's one of the reasons no one has took him on.

is there a particular job just for people on the SO register then?
 
But the point is that the verdict is based on whether there is enough evidence that he did it, in criminal cases beyond reasonable doubt (in civil on the balance of probabilities), and that leaves a lot of room for 'he did it, but we can't prove it'. Few people who have convictions overturned walk away with a perception of innocence unless someone else is proven to have done it, which is hardly likely here. May not be fair, but a lot of people will think he got away with it. If there had been insufficient evidence to go to retrial at all, I think people would maybe see him as more likely to be innocent. Although the police and prosecution may get their act together for the retrial and do a better job.
If he isn't guilty, he is innocent and even you can't blame the Tories for that.
 
I very much doubt he'd command that sort of money now.

He's completed his time and hasn't been allowed to carry on with his profession.

Let's be honest, for his conviction to be squashed and a retrial ordered, there must be some overwhelming evidence that he was not guilty.

But his career and reputation has already been smashed to pieces.

No, there was insufficient evidence that he was guilty - different thing. If there was overwhelming evidence he was not guilty, the verdict would be set aside, i.e. revoked.
 
No, there was insufficient evidence that he was guilty - different thing. If there was overwhelming evidence he was not guilty, the verdict would be set aside, i.e. revoked.

What I read was there was new evidence presented at the appeal and that is why the appeal was successful. As it's subject to reporting restrictions no-one knows what that new evidence is yet.
 
What I read was there was new evidence presented at the appeal and that is why the appeal was successful. As it's subject to reporting restrictions no-one knows what that new evidence is yet.

And it's probably best that we don't speculate on that, at least not here
 
Top