Ched Evans kicked into touch - at last.

[grimbletart]

At last Sheffield United have done the decent thing.

[www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/30054475]

Ronnie Moore?
The manager sacked by his last club after breaching FA rules on betting?

Hartlepool?
The club at the very bottom of League 2 (formerly Division 4) and facing relegation from league football?

It's desperation, compounded with a manager with recent poor judgement (who I hope is speaking personally as he's been in post less than a week) that has led to this utter stupidity.

Hartlepool have been through a number of managers recently. But it must be some kind of record to show this level of incompetence this early on.

If he just wants to play football, there's a kick about every Sunday on every playing field in the land, right?

I think what was meant was "he just wants to earn a high wage and be famous again and disregard the life he and his family destroyed"

Well, he won't be playing at Hartlepool

Good good.

What does it have to do with football? Shouldn't football teams be allowed to employ whoever they want and whoever they think will give the team the best chances of winning games?

www.chedevans.com/

And so both sides of the story are heard, there is evidence proving Evans was wrongly convicted.

Reported, yussetec, for this and your other FWR posts.

Ched Evans is a convicted rapist who has twice been refused the right to appeal because two sets of judges have reviewed his claims and found them to provide insufficient grounds for appeal. Now he's trying again, using a procedure that far more often than not finds the same thing ie no grounds for appeal.

I won't be engaging with any of your other posts. Goodbye.

Conviction usually means the convicted person has committed the crime but not 100% of the time. It's not uncommon for men to be convicted of rape, spend years in prison then be released after new evidence arises or the accuser changes her story.

I believe Ched Evans. I believe he did not commit rape and was wrongly convicted.

I know as a feminist you have been conditioned to believe women never lie and men are all evil boogeymen, but for once try looking at things from an unbiased perspective.

I believe these things called trials which House alluded to are unbiased non-feminist setups which have been conditioned to believe that women never lie etc etc. They are a fantastic step forward in comparison to the biased websites which crop up to defend the indefensible - you might want to consider referring to them instead of some fanzine-type thing.

Unbiased legal report here

Why would the complainant delete the Facebook and Twitter messages she made on the night of the alleged rape? (see website)

which have not been conditioned

What did the trial judge have to say about the FB posts/Twitter feeds?

"Why would the complainant delete the Facebook and Twitter messages she made on the night of the alleged rape? (see website)"

I'd prefer to see how this was dealt with in the trial.

Whose testimony discussed this?

Deleted Tweets about "when I win big!" were recovered. She and supporters denied they existed but they were proven to have been made by her but then deleted later.

www.chedevans.com/the-disputed-tweets

If the tweets were nothing to do with the case, why would she lie about making them?

Again - what did the trial judge have to say about the FB posts/Twitter feeds?

Have you got trial transcripts that cover those messages?

Are you hard of reading as well as of thinking? Your own link states these were from 5 months later, yet your post states they were from the same day.

And I wonder why someone who was continually being harassed and had her identity exposed twice in breach of the law might delete things from social media.