Jump to content

Phill v Holly - Guest starring Ched Evans

AlexLaw76

By AlexLaw76,
in The Lounge

 Share

Recommended Posts

sadoldgit

sadoldgit

Posted
Posted (edited)
On 09/06/2023 at 14:43, egg said:

Yet you seem to be suggesting that Schofield has only done something wrong if there's "cast iron" evidence or he's convicted in a criminal court.

You're all over the place.

I beg to differ egg. I have been following this story for weeks before the news broke in the media on another (very rabid) social media platform, one that makes this place at its worse look like a teddy bear’s picnic, and on the basis of pure conjecture and heresay they decided he was a paedophile and child groomer - no sign of any proper evidence. Since then the only thing we know for a fact is that he did have a sexual affair with MM (when he was 20 according to Schofield) and lied about it, did meet him initially when he was 15 and that MM went to work at ITV when he was 18.

As you know, Schofield has admitted the above but claimed that there was no grooming involved although he accepts it was a misjudgement for him at his age to have a workplace relationship with someone so much younger.

As far as I know there has been no statement from MM.

Meeting someone at the age of 15 and then having a sexual relationship with them, as a work colleague, when they are 20 does not mean or prove that MM was groomed. Stating the obvious, older people taking advantage of younger people happens all the time and, if the younger person is above the age of consent, it is not illegal, nor does it constitute paedophilia.

I haven’t read every post here but from what I have seen and heard so far there is absolutely no proof that MM was groomed. If it happened then perhaps it will be revealed by the current investigation but, in the meantime I shall keep my pitchfork in the barn as the grooming element seems to have been formed by what people think happened without any evidence of what actually happened. Before you kick off again, if MM went to work for ITV at 18 and they didn’t actually start a sexual relationship until he was 20, if he was groomed for sex he was groomed as an adult for 2 years. I am not sure that grooming an adult who is legally able to consent qualifies as actual grooming?

If I have missed it and there is anything else here that is substantial rather than pure supposition regarding grooming, please point me in its direction

Edited by sadoldgit
Added text
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Weston Super Saint

Weston Super Saint

Posted
Posted
22 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

if he was groomed for sex he was groomed as an adult for 2 years. I am not sure that grooming an adult who is legally able to consent qualifies as actual grooming?

If I have missed it.....

Yep, you missed it all right.

Adults can be groomed.  Surely they covered that when you headed up the CPS?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Turkish

Turkish

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, sadoldgit said:

I beg to differ egg. I have been following this story for weeks before the news broke in the media on another (very rabid) social media platform, one that makes this place at its worse look like a teddy bear’s picnic, and on the basis of pure conjecture and heresay they decided he was a paedophile and child groomer - no sign of any proper evidence. Since then the only thing we know for a fact is that he did have a sexual affair with MM (when he was 20 according to Schofield) and lied about it, did meet him initially when he was 15 and that MM went to work at ITV when he was 18.

As you know, Schofield has admitted the above but claimed that there was no grooming involved although he accepts it was a misjudgement for him at his age to have a workplace relationship with someone so much younger.

As far as I know there has been no statement from MM.

Meeting someone at the age of 15 and then having a sexual relationship with them, as a work colleague, when they are 20 does not mean or prove that MM was groomed. Stating the obvious, older people taking advantage of younger people happens all the time and, if the younger person is above the age of consent, it is not illegal, nor does it constitute paedophilia.

I haven’t read every post here but from what I have seen and heard so far there is absolutely no proof that MM was groomed. If it happened then perhaps it will be revealed by the current investigation but, in the meantime I shall keep my pitchfork in the barn as the grooming element seems to have been formed by what people think happened without any evidence of what actually happened. Before you kick off again, if MM went to work for ITV at 18 and they didn’t actually start a sexual relationship until he was 20, if he was groomed for sex he was groomed as an adult for 2 years. I am not sure that grooming an adult who is legally able to consent qualifies as actual grooming?

If I have missed it and there is anything else here that is substantial rather than pure supposition regarding grooming, please point me in its direction

Make it stop. Please please make it stop. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
sadoldgit

sadoldgit

Posted
Posted (edited)
16 hours ago, egg said:

Just scroll on by Del. Scroll on by. 

In an ideal world he would scroll on by every thread. He can’t help himself from having a pop at minority groups or anyone who speaks out in support of them. Little wonder you support him so much as you seem to be his mate.

Edited by sadoldgit
Added text
Link to comment
Share on other sites
egg

egg

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, sadoldgit said:

In an ideal world he would scroll on by every thread. He can’t help himself from having a pop at minority groups or anyone who speaks out in support of them. Little wonder you support him so much as you seem to be his mate.

Jeez. You get worse. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Turkish

Turkish

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, sadoldgit said:

In an ideal world he would scroll on by every thread. He can’t help himself from having a pop at minority groups or anyone who speaks out in support of them. Little wonder you support him so much as you seem to be his mate.

How do you know and why would you care? You have me on ignore. It’s incredible you can criticise any other poster when not a week goes by when you don’t confirm the fact you’re the biggest dickhead posting on football forums 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sadoldgit

sadoldgit

Posted
Posted (edited)

An interesting comment from a barrister about the acquittal and an article from The Independent at the time.

So Ched Evans has been proved innocent, right?

Wrong. You’d be forgiven for thinking this, given that it was in the prepared statement read out by his solicitor, but Ched Evans has not “demonstrated his innocence”. That is not how our criminal justice system operates. It is not a means by which the truth of a situation or event is conclusively and fully determined. Rather the jury are asked one simple question – are you sure that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt (or, as juries are commonly instructed, so that you are sure)? “Not guilty” means just that. The jury were not sure that he was guilty. They may have decided that he was totally, utterly innocent, but we don’t know. All we know is that they considered the evidence, and were less than sure of his guilt. As I tell juries in every closing speech – if you think the defendant probably did it, he’s still not guilty. 
 

https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/news/ched-evans-rape-case-not-guilty-verdict-no-winners-compensation-a7362306.html

 

Edited by sadoldgit
Add
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Saint_clark

Saint_clark

Posted
Posted
On 09/06/2023 at 13:51, Weston Super Saint said:

Have you got any evidence that "untold stuff written about them online" would need legal action to be taken?

If not, aren't you jumping to conclusions without proof?

Well if the stuff is true, then they'll need legal advice/support in the event they face criminal charges. 

If the stuff isn't true, they'll need legal advice/support to get that kind of stuff taken down and/or rescinded. 

 

The idea that you would only ever need legal counsel if you've done something wrong is patently absurd and honestly quite dangerous. My advice to everyone is never say a word until you have a lawyer present and have spoken to them privately first, even if you know with 100% certainty you've done nothing wrong. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Weston Super Saint

Weston Super Saint

Posted
Posted
42 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

An interesting comment from a barrister about the acquittal and an article from The Independent at the time.

So Ched Evans has been proved innocent, right?

Wrong. You’d be forgiven for thinking this, given that it was in the prepared statement read out by his solicitor, but Ched Evans has not “demonstrated his innocence”. That is not how our criminal justice system operates. It is not a means by which the truth of a situation or event is conclusively and fully determined. Rather the jury are asked one simple question – are you sure that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt (or, as juries are commonly instructed, so that you are sure)? “Not guilty” means just that. The jury were not sure that he was guilty. They may have decided that he was totally, utterly innocent, but we don’t know. All we know is that they considered the evidence, and were less than sure of his guilt. As I tell juries in every closing speech – if you think the defendant probably did it, he’s still not guilty. 
 

https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/news/ched-evans-rape-case-not-guilty-verdict-no-winners-compensation-a7362306.html

 

And yet you've spent the last 3 weeks demanding 'conclusive' proof.

For the person who used to head up the CPS, you don't appear to have much of a grasp on the law.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Weston Super Saint

Weston Super Saint

Posted
Posted
18 minutes ago, Saint_clark said:

Well if the stuff is true, then they'll need legal advice/support in the event they face criminal charges. 

If the stuff isn't true, they'll need legal advice/support to get that kind of stuff taken down and/or rescinded. 

 

The idea that you would only ever need legal counsel if you've done something wrong is patently absurd and honestly quite dangerous. My advice to everyone is never say a word until you have a lawyer present and have spoken to them privately first, even if you know with 100% certainty you've done nothing wrong. 

It's fine, I understand the need, I'm just being pedanticly ironic in that post as aintclever has been screaming from the rooftops demanding 'unequivocal proof' every time anyone posts anything....

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Turkish

Turkish

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, sadoldgit said:

An interesting comment from a barrister about the acquittal and an article from The Independent at the time.

So Ched Evans has been proved innocent, right?

Wrong. You’d be forgiven for thinking this, given that it was in the prepared statement read out by his solicitor, but Ched Evans has not “demonstrated his innocence”. That is not how our criminal justice system operates. It is not a means by which the truth of a situation or event is conclusively and fully determined. Rather the jury are asked one simple question – are you sure that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt (or, as juries are commonly instructed, so that you are sure)? “Not guilty” means just that. The jury were not sure that he was guilty. They may have decided that he was totally, utterly innocent, but we don’t know. All we know is that they considered the evidence, and were less than sure of his guilt. As I tell juries in every closing speech – if you think the defendant probably did it, he’s still not guilty. 
 

https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/news/ched-evans-rape-case-not-guilty-verdict-no-winners-compensation-a7362306.html

 

I thought you said it was an interesting comment?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RedArmy

RedArmy

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, sadoldgit said:

In an ideal world he would scroll on by every thread. He can’t help himself from having a pop at minority groups or anyone who speaks out in support of them. Little wonder you support him so much as you seem to be his mate.

Says the man that used the term “coconut”, refers to non-whites as “they” and called Priti Patel an immigrant. 
 

The only bigot on this forum is you. 

  • Like 3
  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lighthouse

Lighthouse

Posted
Posted
On 10/06/2023 at 18:24, Turkish said:

Make it stop. Please please make it stop. 

 

6 hours ago, sadoldgit said:

In an ideal world he would scroll on by every thread. He can’t help himself from having a pop at minority groups or anyone who speaks out in support of them. Little wonder you support him so much as you seem to be his mate.

I think it’s hilarious that both of you pretend you don’t absolutely love each other. Face it, you’re in an online, same sex, BDSM relationship.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Turkish

Turkish

Posted
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, Lighthouse said:

 

I think it’s hilarious that both of you pretend you don’t absolutely love each other. Face it, you’re in an online, same sex, BDSM relationship.

I’m definitely his heroin. He can’t get enough 

Edited by Turkish
Link to comment
Share on other sites
hypochondriac

hypochondriac

Posted
Posted
22 hours ago, sadoldgit said:

In an ideal world he would scroll on by every thread. He can’t help himself from having a pop at minority groups or anyone who speaks out in support of them. Little wonder you support him so much as you seem to be his mate.

It's clear that men 50+ meeting underage boys and then subsequently having a sexual relationship with him when he's in a position of power over him even if he was then an adult is a particular type of minority that needs support. I'm so glad you're around to do it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lord Duckhunter

Lord Duckhunter

Posted
Posted
20 hours ago, RedArmy said:

Says the man that used the term “coconut”, refers to non-whites as “they” and called Priti Patel an immigrant. 
 

The only bigot on this forum is you. 

Don’t forget comparing the Jews to gingers.

His position on most subjects seems to be “see what Turkish’s view is, then oppose it”. 

  • Like 3
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Turkish

Turkish

Posted
Posted
41 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

Don’t forget comparing the Jews to gingers.

His position on most subjects seems to be “see what Turkish’s view is, then oppose it”. 

That's exactly what it is, although as he's got me on ignore he cant see what my view is so it's no idea how he can oppose it. 🤔

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
  • 3 months later...
  • 6 months later...
  • 2 months later...

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...