to post a link to an Oldham sponsor that will continue to support them even with Ched Evans?

[mrleebob]

If it would be, please ignore this.

If not, here it is. www.cmsolicitors.co.uk

Plenty of contact details too. :-)

Choclover...

We're talking about a man who didn't ask for or get or really care whether he had consent from the girl his friend was screwing at the time. They asked each other, not her.

There are also issues regarding who was where.

CM was with her when she entered the hotel. At that time, CE was with his brother and some friends in a taxi going home. CM sent CE a text which said 'got a bird' or words to that effect. CE then turned the taxi around and went to the hotel where he lied to get a room key from the night porter and entered the room without knocking. In the meantime, his brother and friends went round to the window of the room to watch and attempt to film the events.

According to CE's evidence, he watched CM have sex with the woman, and then asked him if he could have a go. He then raped her and left via the fire escape. CM left, having told the night staff to keep an eye on the girl in their room, as she was sick.

I thought they both stated that she had said 'yes'

They did in their court evidence, but CE said in his initial interview that he had asked CM, not her.

Sorry for the cross post, don;t want to look like I'm hectoring you, and I was distracted while typing

I believe he changed his account on the stand from what he'd said to police about whether the woman had been asked. It's moot really though, as he had his brother and pal at the window to film 'events' before he lied his way in without knocking, which rather points to him having made a prior decision to do what he did regardless. Does that make it any clearer?

No need for ridiculous, what "adults" are saying comment.

I haven't sunk to the standard of insulting you. A complete stranger. Just because I have a different opinion to someone I would never label them stupid. Especially on a discussion forum open to anyone.

No point carrying on this debate if its been reduced to childish comments to form a point.

Erm, you seem to post far more idiotic, ill considered tripe than most posters on this thread, Usually. And as for your comment about me being a moral guardian? Wow. Pot? Kettle? Sooty-arse? I assume you have actually read your own posts? How dare you question anyone's morality after some of your comments on this thread. Which, incidentally, I was under the impression that you were going to walk away from.

If you had bothered to read my post, I specifically stated that I was under the impression that a formal announcement was due tomorrow.

I wasn't insulting you Em, I was telling you what adults on the stands are saying about him even while he has no links to the club. Not sure why you thought I was insulting you.

I really don't know how families are supposed to explain chants like that to their children. Football has tried to remake itself so that it's a family game, chants like that, when left unchecked as they have been make a mockery of that.

Christ, my grandkids behave better than you lot!

Choclover, the Sexual Offences Act states that someone must have freedom AND CAPACITY to consent for consent to be valid.

Thus a "yes" given as a result of a threat, say, is not free consent and therefore not valid.

sex with a person drunk/drugged/on medication etc to the extent that they do not have capacity to make decisions CANNOT be validly consented to.

Hahahahahahahaha! No, but they will be I'm sure - heavily pg with dc1.

Hence my somewhat limited and succinct vocabulary, I would imagine.

However you seem a little unfamiliar with MN - allow me to enlighten you.

some parents swear! Yeah, it's prety standard on here.

So, given that it appears Oldham are signing CE, Can we just have a list of sponsors we're going to have to boycott? (i.e. the ones who haven't pulled out?)

I do think it is a bit of a slippery slope (generally) to go down the road where people are not responsible for their decisions when drunk.I mean if you sign a contract whilst paralytic is that still valid? Or buy an elephant, or drive a car?

sooty (I think) posted a link from the Manchester evening news re companies associated with Massey a couple of pages back, think the only sponsor so far to have pulled out so far is Verlin.

Why can't serving your time be enough for some people?

Would you all be happier to have the death sentence?

On that basis, Em, I take it you would be happy to see Gary Glitter back on our screens? And would be perfectly happy for Rolf Harris to be employed again by the BBC when he comes out? After all, they will both have served their time, that's enough for you, isn't it?

The CCRC cannot find his conviction unsafe, malice. They can allow him permission to appeal.

They can't even do that. All they can do is put together a case for applying to the court for permission to appeal. Given that permission has already been refused twice, that's a big hill to climb.

Just out of interest, Malice, would your views change if the CCRC refuse to take the case any further?

I would also question if the victim had any freedom to say no.

Picture it. You are very drunk, naked, having sex in a strange hotel room with a man you met an hour or so ago. A strong and physically fit man. It's his territory, not yours; it's his room.

Suddenly the door is opened and another strong man walks in. It becomes clear that the first man told him to come. He hasn't been invited by you, he hasn't knocked, you don't know who he is, but clearly there's some understanding between him and the guy you just met. The man who has walked in watches the sex then walks forward, unzipping, asking the other man if he can have a go.

There are other friends of theirs outside the window trying to film it, without your invitation or agreement.

Remember, you are naked, drunk, in a strange hotel room, with two strong men who have had absolutely no regard to your privacy, autonomy or opinion thus far and more outside the window.

Do you think anything you say will change what happens next?

Sorry, just to make it clear, that post I quoted there was not from Malice, but was in response to a post from him/her suggesting that the CCRC could grant an appeal.

For Choc Lover this is the reasoning behind the denial of the appeal along with the reasoning for the length of the sentence

Yonic that is a very good point.

Sponsors at the bottom of the page:

www.oldhamathletic.co.uk/commercial/sponsorship/

Icimoi No, but then my views opinions don't hinge on his guilt, or otheriwse. He's been found guilty, and will remain so until such time as an appeal is successful. I respect the law. The same law which convicted him, does not prevent him from playing. If people believe that it should, they should campaign for a change in the law - rather than getting behind arbitary twitter campaigns and petitions.

Parents swear foxache, on here and elsewhere. The difference is whether it's directly at someone....

Nonetheless, heavily pg with no1 is a fair defence to being sweary and not spending time validating your theories. So I withdraw my comment and wish you all the best with DC1

It had to be said