[azul]

Spire-Power, on 13 October 2016 - 07:54 PM, said:

You miss the point. He admits his behaviour was bad. Even if he is acquitted he should have learned a lesson. Don't forget he has already done 2 years inside

Good, lets not waste anymore time and money on him

[Search & Destroy]

Crazy all round really, he should have paid her off, bought her a mini or whatever, she could have done love island or big brother and they both move on from a drunken sh@g

[dim view]

Cheshunt Spireite, on 13 October 2016 - 05:31 PM, said:

Shocked by the summing up by the judge and questions asked to the jury.

If your points carry as much as an ounce of weight, they will surely be picked up and scrutinised by the Sunday broadsheets whatever the verdict.

Meanwhile, does anybody know how today's proceedings finished? Was the jury told to sleep on matters and start deliberations tomorrow or did they get started? Could they still be in there?

Ched and missus must be very stressed just about now.

[Snowflake McBedwetter]

Westbars Spireite, on 13 October 2016 - 07:27 PM, said:

The question was about the difference between Evans and the acquitted McDonald. Who booked it is irrelevant.

I wasn't replying to a question. I was replying to your claim that he crept in, by pointing out there wouldn't be much point in him creeping in to his own room. I'm not even sure how you creep into a room through the front door, with your own key.

On what exactly did you base the 'crept in' comment?

[Snowflake McBedwetter]

Search and Destroy, on 13 October 2016 - 06:48 PM, said:

Poor Ched, best years of his career gone, and then found not guilty

Presuming he's found not guilty he'll be fully compensated, at the expense of the taxpayer, for lost earnings and time served.

Heads should roll at the CPS.

[Westbars Spireite]

KevinArnottsGoldenBoot, on 13 October 2016 - 08:48 PM, said:

I wasn't replying to a question. I was replying to your claim that he crept in, by pointing out there wouldn't be much point in him creeping in to his own room. I'm not even sure how you creep into a room through the front door, with your own key.

On what exactly did you base the 'crept in' comment?

Why would there 'not be much point'? He wasn't going in to get some kip. He'd lied to obtain a key and, correct me if I'm wrong, quietly crept into a dimly lit room. A similar way to how he exiting the building afterwards.

My comment is based on a description in court.

This post has been edited by Westbars Spireite: 13 October 2016 - 08:57 PM

[BeastMode]

I fail to see how he can be convicted 'beyond reasonable doubt' but then again I thought that the first time round.

The post a few above was right, if he's acquitted please don't let the supporters tarnish the clubs name with stupid songs at the weekend.

For the record, based on all, i originally thought, and still do think that he didn't rape her, simply he just did something stupid and immoral by cheating on his missus, there's not one person on this board that has never done something stupid or immoral, i can almost guarantee that.

EDIT: this is my opinion, not necessarily correct, but still my own.

This post has been edited by BeastMode: 13 October 2016 - 09:23 PM

[azul]

KevinArnottsGoldenBoot, on 13 October 2016 - 08:52 PM, said:

Presuming he's found not guilty he'll be fully compensated, at the expense of the taxpayer, for lost earnings and time served.

Heads should roll at the CPS.

Sadly for Ched and his sychophants the answer is not that clear

He will have to claim the statutary compensation, currently capped at £500K for 'time served' under ten years. For time served over 10 years it is capped at £!M.

The Secretary of State will decide whether he is eligible.

The evidence will need to point to overwheming innocence, note that this is opposite to a trial where the prosecution has to prove the defendants guilt.

I assume he could always take it to the high court where again he would have to prove his overwhelming innocence. Lets hope he doesn't do it as a CFC player

I would have though a legal eagle like yourself would know this kind of stuff

[Snowflake McBedwetter]

Westbars Spireite, on 13 October 2016 - 08:54 PM, said:

Why would there 'not be much point'? He wasn't going in to get some kip. He'd lied to obtain a key and, correct me if I'm wrong, quietly crept into a dimly lit room. A similar way to how he exiting the building afterwards.

My comment is based on a description in court.

He told the receptionist he needed a key because his friend didn't need the room anymore. Which is indeed a lie. Though it has nothing to do with creeping, because he would've had to identify himself in order to get the key. To creep is to move slowly or carefully in order to avoid being noticed.

And entering a hotel room with a key isn't creeping by any definition of the word either. McDonald announced Evans's presence by asking if he could join in, so no creeping there.

As per leaving, you could argue he crept out, though there'd be no point in creeping out as he'd already registered his presence. So for me, it indicates an instinctive act of embarassment/shame rather than an attempt to go un-noticed.

[azul]

KevinArnottsGoldenBoot, on 13 October 2016 - 09:36 PM, said:

He told the receptionist he needed a key because his friend didn't need the room anymore. Which is indeed a lie. Though it has nothing to do with creeping, because he would've had to identify himself in order to get the key. To creep is to move slowly or carefully in order to avoid being noticed.

And entering a hotel room with a key isn't creeping by any definition of the word either. McDonald announced Evans's presence by asking if he could join in, so no creeping there.

As per leaving, you could argue he crept out, though there'd be no point in creeping out as he'd already registered his presence. So for me, it indicates an instinctive act of embarassment/shame rather than an attempt to go un-noticed.

Give up mate, you are clueless

[plannerj]

KevinArnottsGoldenBoot, on 13 October 2016 - 09:36 PM, said:

He told the receptionist he needed a key because his friend didn't need the room anymore. Which is indeed a lie. Though it has nothing to do with creeping, because he would've had to identify himself in order to get the key. To creep is to move slowly or carefully in order to avoid being noticed.

And entering a hotel room with a key isn't creeping by any definition of the word either. McDonald announced Evans's presence by asking if he could join in, so no creeping there.

As per leaving, you could argue he crept out, though there'd be no point in creeping out as he'd already registered his presence. So for me, it indicates an instinctive act of embarassment/shame rather than an attempt to go un-noticed.

Good point. Only Donald Trump would have walked with a swagger through reception, tell the night porter all about his locker room behaviour and exit into the street by the hotel's main entrance. The rest of us, innocent or not, would have used the fire escape.

[Snowflake McBedwetter]

azul, on 13 October 2016 - 09:30 PM, said:

Sadly for Ched and his sychophants the answer is not that clear

He will have to claim the statutary compensation, currently capped at £500K for 'time served' under ten years. For time served over 10 years it is capped at £!M.

The Secretary of State will decide whether he is eligible.

The evidence will need to point to overwheming innocence, note that this is opposite to a trial where the prosecution has to prove the defendants guilt.

I assume he could always take it to the high court where again he would have to prove his overwhelming innocence. Lets hope he doesn't do it as a CFC player

I would have though a legal eagle like yourself would know this kind of stuff

I'm no legal eagle. Don't need to be to point out the glaringly obvious. 500k at the expense of the taxpayer is still 500k at the expense of the taxpayer. Not to mention plenty more than that in costs and administration. Heads should roll. My point stands.

Still, if it let's a load of two-bit pitchfork wielding moralisers such as yourself have a good rant then i suppose it's worth every penny eh!?

*You might want to look up the definition of sycophant as well.

[Snowflake McBedwetter]

azul, on 13 October 2016 - 09:39 PM, said:

Give up mate, you are clueless

Nah. I just understand the English language.

Have a look at what crept means. And sycophant while you're there.

[calvin plummers socks]

KevinArnottsGoldenBoot, on 13 October 2016 - 09:51 PM, said:

Nah. I just understand the English language.

Have a look at what crept means. And sycophant while you're there.

You'd love a room with Ched wouldn't you?

[azul]

KevinArnottsGoldenBoot, on 13 October 2016 - 09:49 PM, said:

I'm no legal eagle. Don't need to be to point out the glaringly obvious. 500k at the expense of the taxpayer is still 500k at the expense of the taxpayer. Not to mention plenty more than that in costs and administration. Heads should roll. My point stands.

Still, if it let's a load of two-bit pitchfork wielding moralisers such as yourself have a good rant then i suppose it's worth every penny eh!?

*You might want to look up the definition of sycophant as well.

Sorry from some of your previous posts I thought you were a legal expert.

But the point remains, the SoS will have to be sympathetic and OK his claim, and then an independant abitrator will set the level of compensation (minus his living expenses for 2+ years )

Just pointing out it isn't straightforward as you thought.

Being correct doesn't make someone a 'two-bit pitchfork wielding moraliser' but being a 'blindly faithful camp follower' does make someone a sycophant

This post has been edited by azul: 13 October 2016 - 10:17 PM

[Snowflake McBedwetter]

azul, on 13 October 2016 - 10:15 PM, said:

Sorry from some of your previous posts I thought you were a legal expert.

But the point remains, the SoS will have to be sympathetic and OK his claim and then an independant abitrator will set the level of compensation (minus his living expenses for 2+ years )

Being correct doesn't make someone a 'two-bit pitchfork wielding moraliser' but being a blindly faithful camp follower does make someonea 'sycophant'

If I ever spot that you get something correct then I'll send congratulations.

And a sycophant is someone who toadies upto someone important in order to gain an advantage (eg. brown-nosing the boss at work. None of the people on this board/or anywhere else stand to gain any advantage by believing Evans is innocent. So they're not sycophants.

They just don't agree with you.

[azul]

KevinArnottsGoldenBoot, on 13 October 2016 - 10:26 PM, said:

If I ever spot that you get something correct then I'll send congratulations.

And a sycophant is someone who toadies upto someone important in order to gain an advantage (eg. brown-nosing the boss at work. None of the people on this board/or anywhere else stand to gain any advantage by believing Evans is innocent. So they're not sycophants.

They just don't agree with you.

Well my outline of the rules governing compensation for wrongful imprisonment is 100% correct. No, I'll be modest about 99%, not sure about the possibility of High Court hearing.

Therefore, I'm waiting for your congratulations.

No need for an apology on your part for being 100% wrong in your original assumption.

But it says a lot that you are concetrating on symantics rather than discussing Ched's compensation claim (if found not guilty)

[Spired]

He can't be found guilty of the crime he's being retried for on the evidence

[satnav]

In order to qualify for compensation surely Evans would need to prove that there was a serious miscarriage of justice at his original trial. The jury reached it's verdict based on the evidence put before it at the time and the decision was subsequently upheld on appeal. If significant new evidence has since come to light that cast doubt on the original verdict then it is only right that the case is retried before a new jury.

To prove there was a miscarriage of justice in the first trial Evans would have to either prove that the prosecution deliberately withheld evidence that would have helped to prove his innocence or he would need to show that the judge in the original trial gave the wrong advice to the jury.

[Spired]

his other option is professional negligence against his own defence team in the original trial in the absence of the above? He'd need to instruct solicitors to pick holes in the original failures and poor advice given...which might not be too difficult it seems

This post has been edited by Spired: 13 October 2016 - 11:14 PM