sloppy-giuseppe Posted 9 January, 2015 Share Posted 9 January, 2015 I know he is the highest paid Union Official in the UK, but in my view he has clearly 'backed the wrong horse' in all this, and may end up being lucky to keep his job. Irrespective of the 'legalities', these guys clearly behaved abominably. The girl probably did consent to 'doing it' with the first, but for him to then phone his mate [ Evans] to 'row him in' was dreadful. ****ed though she indubitably was, it seems that she probably realised she was being taken advantage of by then, and didn't want to with Evans. But he was clearly 'up for it', and not to be denied !! But whatever the true facts, he was found guilty in a Court of Law. I know there are precedents for 'ex cons' [Lee Hughes for one'] to return to game. But 2 wrongs don't make a right. The public outcry has been immense, and the clubs turning Evans down may well have done him a favour. Can you imagine the publicity ? The pressure on him and everyone else ? Wives and girlfriends of players in opposing teams ? Players refusing to play against him ? Or even TEAMS ? Bad tackles ? Referees ? Who knows where it could end ? Of course he should be allowed to earn a living. But not as a 'Role Model' Professional Football Player. Maybe in a factory somewhere ? Or washing soiled sheets in a hotel laundry ? Harsh ? Maybe. But you get the point. Personally I think that any convicted criminal should be expelled from any union. They could then re-apply once released, and having proved themselves worthy of rehabilitation, and it should then be up to all the other members to say 'yes' or 'no'. That way Gordon Taylor wouldn't find himself in the middle of making remarks on things like Hillsborough, that are absolutely bound to land him in even more **** than he ever dreamed was possible. But that's all to come. It's a bad business all round, and really not something that we want to be involved with in our great game. I know this is only my second post on here, but I was a member of the Saints wing of 606 for about 10 years, so not exactly a newcomer ! But this has got me going again !! [ Actually I'm just glad it wasn't a Saints Player involved !!] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pancake Posted 9 January, 2015 Share Posted 9 January, 2015 Are you Neil Allen? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bearsy Posted 9 January, 2015 Share Posted 9 January, 2015 (edited) He was on radio just now comparing Ched Evans plight with that of the Hillsborough victims Edit: sorry which is what ur post was about, i got lost in the paragraphs Edited 9 January, 2015 by Bearsy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sloppy-giuseppe Posted 9 January, 2015 Author Share Posted 9 January, 2015 Are you Neil Allen? No Mate !! Actually never heard of him ! Had to look him on the Internet ! I would imagine you are referring to the Pompey Sports Writer, and not the USA Baseball Player ! I was a season ticket holder from 1990 [ Dell Days] until 2005 when I left to live in New Zealand near Christchurch. But still follow every game, success and disaster ! Do my views reflect his in some way then ? Cheers for now !! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Saint Posted 9 January, 2015 Share Posted 9 January, 2015 He has had scandals before and survived - it would appear that the footballers union rep is just as unaccountable as the members and just as well paid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaintNeil90 Posted 9 January, 2015 Share Posted 9 January, 2015 I know he is the highest paid Union Official in the UK, but in my view he has clearly 'backed the wrong horse' in all this, and may end up being lucky to keep his job. Irrespective of the 'legalities', these guys clearly behaved abominably. The girl probably did consent to 'doing it' with the first, but for him to then phone his mate [ Evans] to 'row him in' was dreadful. ****ed though she indubitably was, it seems that she probably realised she was being taken advantage of by then, and didn't want to with Evans. But he was clearly 'up for it', and not to be denied !! But whatever the true facts, he was found guilty in a Court of Law. I know there are precedents for 'ex cons' [Lee Hughes for one'] to return to game. But 2 wrongs don't make a right. The public outcry has been immense, and the clubs turning Evans down may well have done him a favour. Can you imagine the publicity ? The pressure on him and everyone else ? Wives and girlfriends of players in opposing teams ? Players refusing to play against him ? Or even TEAMS ? Bad tackles ? Referees ? Who knows where it could end ? Of course he should be allowed to earn a living. But not as a 'Role Model' Professional Football Player. Maybe in a factory somewhere ? Or washing soiled sheets in a hotel laundry ? Harsh ? Maybe. But you get the point. Personally I think that any convicted criminal should be expelled from any union. They could then re-apply once released, and having proved themselves worthy of rehabilitation, and it should then be up to all the other members to say 'yes' or 'no'. That way Gordon Taylor wouldn't find himself in the middle of making remarks on things like Hillsborough, that are absolutely bound to land him in even more **** than he ever dreamed was possible. But that's all to come. It's a bad business all round, and really not something that we want to be involved with in our great game. I know this is only my second post on here, but I was a member of the Saints wing of 606 for about 10 years, so not exactly a newcomer ! But this has got me going again !! [ Actually I'm just glad it wasn't a Saints Player involved !!] It's people like you that annoy me with this case. Making generalised assumptions without looking at the facts. "****ed though she indubitably was.." Actually when interviewed, she told Police that she "felt tipsy but not out of control". 1. She told police she thought she'd had her drink spiked, however no date rape drugs were found in her system. 2. Police did find cocaine and cannabis in her system, which she confessed was digested 'some days earlier'. 3. The too drunk to consent 'evidence' came from CCTV evidence of the victim stumbling around. However, she was wearing large high heals! We've all seen people that cant walk in those sober! Too many people act like sheep in this country. If you want to be involved in the debate about Evans, then at least look at the case and make up your own mind first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 9 January, 2015 Share Posted 9 January, 2015 It's people like you that annoy me with this case. Making generalised assumptions without looking at the facts. "****ed though she indubitably was.." Actually when interviewed, she told Police that she "felt tipsy but not out of control". 1. She told police she thought she'd had her drink spiked, however no date rape drugs were found in her system. 2. Police did find cocaine and cannabis in her system, which she confessed was digested 'some days earlier'. 3. The too drunk to consent 'evidence' came from CCTV evidence of the victim stumbling around. However, she was wearing large high heals! We've all seen people that cant walk in those sober! Too many people act like sheep in this country. If you want to be involved in the debate about Evans, then at least look at the case and make up your own mind first. Indeed. It amazes me (actually, scratch that, it doesn't in the slightest) that the vast majority of people making comment on 'social media' have quite clearly not bothered to read any of the case notes for themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minty Posted 9 January, 2015 Share Posted 9 January, 2015 Indeed. It amazes me (actually, scratch that, it doesn't in the slightest) that the vast majority of people making comment on 'social media' have quite clearly not bothered to read any of the case notes for themselves. What, people comment on the internet without having done any of their own reading or research into a subject?!? Next you'll be telling me they are only using what is in the media to derive their limited opinions... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 9 January, 2015 Share Posted 9 January, 2015 It's people like you that annoy me with this case. Making generalised assumptions without looking at the facts. "****ed though she indubitably was.." Actually when interviewed, she told Police that she "felt tipsy but not out of control". 1. She told police she thought she'd had her drink spiked, however no date rape drugs were found in her system. 2. Police did find cocaine and cannabis in her system, which she confessed was digested 'some days earlier'. 3. The too drunk to consent 'evidence' came from CCTV evidence of the victim stumbling around. However, she was wearing large high heals! We've all seen people that cant walk in those sober! Too many people act like sheep in this country. If you want to be involved in the debate about Evans, then at least look at the case and make up your own mind first. The important thing here is tha the police and CPS thought there was enough here to take the case to court where a jury found Evans guilty. Everything else is just a lot of hot air. You can make your own mind up but that does not stop him being a convicted rapist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minty Posted 9 January, 2015 Share Posted 9 January, 2015 Should probably keep this thread to Gordon Taylor, seeing as we have one on Evans himself. Personally, I think his comments last night about Hillsborough, but also effectively pre-empting the result of Evans' appeal, were completely out of order. It is not his place to determine Evans' guilt or not. I accept they have a role to play representing him in trying to get him a game again (good luck with that) but those other comments were just wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 9 January, 2015 Share Posted 9 January, 2015 The important thing here is tha the police and CPS thought there was enough here to take the case to court Yep. And they thought the same about McDonald too. You win some, you lose some.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kwsaint Posted 9 January, 2015 Share Posted 9 January, 2015 Should probably keep this thread to Gordon Taylor, seeing as we have one on Evans himself. Personally, I think his comments last night about Hillsborough, but also effectively pre-empting the result of Evans' appeal, were completely out of order. It is not his place to determine Evans' guilt or not. I accept they have a role to play representing him in trying to get him a game again (good luck with that) but those other comments were just wrong. It seems to me that Taylor defends every single player regardless of what they've done. He seems to think he's job is to defend them which it isn't (that's for his lawyers). It's representing the player body and if that is going against one player then so be it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Batman Posted 9 January, 2015 Share Posted 9 January, 2015 It seems to me that Taylor defends every single player regardless of what they've done. He seems to think he's job is to defend them which it isn't (that's for his lawyers). It's representing the player body and if that is going against one player then so be it. Surely it is his job to defend those that effectively pay him? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bearsy Posted 9 January, 2015 Share Posted 9 January, 2015 Surely it is his job to defend those that effectively pay him? makes his contribution to any debate fairly worthless tho, ain't it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Batman Posted 9 January, 2015 Share Posted 9 January, 2015 makes his contribution to any debate fairly worthless tho, ain't it He is an idiot. Listening to him is as hideous as listening to Katie Hopkins Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saintandy666 Posted 9 January, 2015 Share Posted 9 January, 2015 I'd say the big loser in all this is the rape victim. The rape victim whose had to move home 5 times already due to safety reasons. No idea why Gordon Taylor said what he said, makes no sense - a lot of people don't seem to understand what rape is, certainly Ched Evans doesn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 9 January, 2015 Share Posted 9 January, 2015 (edited) I'd say the big loser in all this is the rape victim. Indeed. And not forgetting McDonald who, as it transpired, was falsely accused of rape. http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/clayton-mcdonald-ched-evans-rape-7993571 Edited 9 January, 2015 by trousers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 9 January, 2015 Share Posted 9 January, 2015 Indeed. And not forgetting McDonald who, as it transpired, was falsely accused of rape. http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/clayton-mcdonald-ched-evans-rape-7993571 The police and CPS felt there was enough evidence to charge both with rape. He was charged and found not guilty. The "falsely" can only come after the verdict. Frankly I think he was lucky he didnt end up sharing a cell with his buddy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 9 January, 2015 Share Posted 9 January, 2015 Surely it is his job to defend those that effectively pay him? Defense lawyers are also paid to defend their clients but many will advise their clients to please guilty if they think they are and will get convicted. Defending a rapist is defending the indefensible. He could argue that Evans has paid his debt and deserves to be able to play football again - but he might have been better off advising Evans to apologise and show some remorse (which has only just happened, long over due) and to get his buddies to take that offensive website down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 9 January, 2015 Share Posted 9 January, 2015 (edited) The police and CPS felt there was enough evidence to charge both with rape. He was charged and found not guilty. The "falsely" can only come after the verdict. Frankly I think he was lucky he didnt end up sharing a cell with his buddy. Either we accept both jury decisions unconditionally or question both equally, surely? Or are you suggesting its OK to question the jury's decision for one defendant but not the other? Edited 9 January, 2015 by trousers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Batman Posted 9 January, 2015 Share Posted 9 January, 2015 Defense lawyers are also paid to defend their clients but many will advise their clients to please guilty if they think they are and will get convicted. Defending a rapist is defending the indefensible. He could argue that Evans has paid his debt and deserves to be able to play football again - but he might have been better off advising Evans to apologise and show some remorse (which has only just happened, long over due) and to get his buddies to take that offensive website down. He is not there to play lawyer He is there to represent those that pay his probably very large salary Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 9 January, 2015 Share Posted 9 January, 2015 So you think he should stand up and say no matter what Evans did and no matter the public outcry, he should be allowed to ply his trade again? If he was a teachers union rep he wouldnt have a leg to stand on. Perhaps he should have counseled Evans on how to conduct himself to give himself the best chance of getting a job when he came out rather then letting him carry on digging a hole for himself? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Batman Posted 9 January, 2015 Share Posted 9 January, 2015 So you think he should stand up and say no matter what Evans did and no matter the public outcry, he should be allowed to ply his trade again? If he was a teachers union rep he wouldnt have a leg to stand on. Perhaps he should have counseled Evans on how to conduct himself to give himself the best chance of getting a job when he came out rather then letting him carry on digging a hole for himself? Evens is entitled to seek employment. Regardless of what you think is right or wrong. The justice system has deemed it acceptable that he is not under lock and key and get his life back on track. That is what Taylor is defending for his paying customer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 9 January, 2015 Share Posted 9 January, 2015 He is not there to play lawyer He is there to represent those that pay his probably very large salary Nothing probable about it. It is very large. Reportedly £984,000. In 2011: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-12402734 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 9 January, 2015 Share Posted 9 January, 2015 Evens is entitled to seek employment. Regardless of what you think is right or wrong. The justice system has deemed it acceptable that he is not under lock and key and get his life back on track. That is what Taylor is defending for his paying customer The due process of law convicted him and the same process deemed that he could leave prison. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ludwig Posted 9 January, 2015 Share Posted 9 January, 2015 I'd say the big loser in all this is the rape victim. This. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bucks Saint Posted 9 January, 2015 Share Posted 9 January, 2015 Either we accept both jury decisions unconditionally or question both equally, surely? Or are you suggesting its OK to question the jury's decision for one defendant but not the other? Completely this. Some people have repeatedly said that Evans was convicted by a jury of his peers and that is that. To describe someone found not guilty, by that same jury of people good and true, as "lucky" is ludicrous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Torres Posted 10 January, 2015 Share Posted 10 January, 2015 Too many people act like sheep in this country. If you want to be involved in the debate about Evans, then at least look at the case and make up your own mind first. I'd feel pretty safe in saying that the 12 members of the jury who listened to evidence from both sides in a trial lasting 9 days have a better idea of what happened than pretty much anyone else, so without spending equal time "looking at the case" it's probably worth accepting their verdict. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sloppy-giuseppe Posted 10 January, 2015 Author Share Posted 10 January, 2015 It's people like you that annoy me with this case. Making generalised assumptions without looking at the facts. Hi SaintNeil90 Sorry for the late reply to your post, but it seems I am only allowed 3 posts in 24 hours. A fact I wasn't aware of until yesterday ! [ Probably something to do with Jose Mourinho. He seems to have a finger in every pie these days!] I liked your post.....apart from one or two points ! The first being: QUOTE: "It's people like you who annoy me" QUOTE. Well......if we're talking about 'generalisations', you can't get more 'generalised' than that !! And I can assure you that there are a LOT of people like me, so you must spend a large part of your life in a state of perpetual annoyance. Also, if we're talking about 'generalisations', then the time honoured phrase "Hoist with his own Petard" comes to mind. [i'm sure you know what I mean. If not, 'Google It', as they say !] But, let's forget that. I know you were writing 'on the fly', and your main points were about the 'case'. Contrary to your assumptions, I am well aware of most of the facts of the case. And the facts as you have stated them are correct. But it's also correct that the girl was tested as 2.5 times over the legal driving limit, which does mean that she was intoxicated to a degree, although not necessarily 'legless'. That would depend on many factors, such her own tolerances etc etc, which none of us [ presumably] know. Nevertheless, Evans was found guilty in a Court of Law, and imprisoned for 5 years, of which he served 2 and a half before being released under 'licence'. These are facts available to everyone in the whole wide world, [... not just to 'people like me', as you so quaintly put it !] So I'm not really sure who you are defending here. Is the Footballer ? Or the girl ? Or is it Gordon Taylor ? Or is it the right to make 'Generalisations'........in general ? My main point was that I thought it extremely foolhardy of Taylor to get involved to the extent of likening this case to that of the Hillsborough victims , which is an emotive subject, even on a quiet day, let alone in the heat of the Evans debacle. He will probably spend loads of air-time in the next few days defending and wriggling out of his remarks. An inevitable consequence which I now see has already begun by Taylor ! That was my main point, no matter who you are supporting, or which side of a very difficult argument you are favouring. And to call anyone who doesn't agree with you 'sheep', is a touch unimaginative. Sheep are very different from Humans. They have 4 legs for a start. Warm woolly coats. Crap anywhere, whenever they feel like it. Are good to eat. And don't 'generalise'. And most important of all, they know nothing about Ched Evans or Hillsborough. Maybe Gordon Taylor would have been well advised to have taken the same stance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 10 January, 2015 Share Posted 10 January, 2015 Evens is entitled to seek employment. Regardless of what you think is right or wrong. The justice system has deemed it acceptable that he is not under lock and key and get his life back on track. That is what Taylor is defending for his paying customer I have never said that I dont think that Evans is not entitled to seek employment and technically and legally there is nothing preventing him playing professional football again. There is quite clearly though a huge moral issue surrounding this and one that Taylor would have done well to heed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saintandy666 Posted 11 January, 2015 Share Posted 11 January, 2015 Evans is perfectly within liberty to be employed anywhere. But football clubs are private entities with customers, and sponsors. As consumers of the product, customers and sponsors are perfectly within their rights to to threaten to withdraw their custom or protest because of something a company does. That's the reality to boil it down to its core. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 11 January, 2015 Share Posted 11 January, 2015 Evens is entitled to seek employment. Regardless of what you think is right or wrong. The justice system has deemed it acceptable that he is not under lock and key and get his life back on track. That is what Taylor is defending for his paying customer What do you think about Taylor's commets about Hillsborough? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Batman Posted 11 January, 2015 Share Posted 11 January, 2015 What do you think about Taylor's commets about Hillsborough? Poor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now