[Guest_freelander2_*]

clarevoyant., on 15 October 2016 - 08:58 AM, said:

Don't think I'd fancy my chances playing 3 card brag with D.A.
Have we finally turned the corner? or after a few days sabbatical is it back to CT bashing?

I fail to see what impact the result of yesterday's case has on Turner's suitability as the CEO of Chesterfield Football Club.

[Westbars Spireite]

turrhall, on 15 October 2016 - 09:30 AM, said:

The Sun: Friend of Women ™. PS, see Ola's minge on page 3.

I don't have a problem with The Sun having issues with the case, but this is downright misrepresentation.

Minge 😁

[clarevoyant.]

freelander2, on 15 October 2016 - 09:49 AM, said:

I fail to see what impact the result of yesterday's case has on Turner's suitability as the CEO of Chesterfield Football Club.

Neither do i

[azul]

clarevoyant., on 15 October 2016 - 09:38 AM, said:

Don't you?

No

The only possibility of anything isthat it will faciltate the departure of DA, CT and AC but I don't see that happeningany time soon

And I don't see any positive outcome from DA's opportunism for the club

[clarevoyant.]

azul, on 15 October 2016 - 09:40 AM, said:

I imagine the papers will be rummaging around this

Good luck to them and all that read them

[Toddhopper.]

Heavy_Soul, on 15 October 2016 - 08:41 AM, said:

Anyone notice the hypocrisy of the Suns front page today?

All done with no sense of irony. Beggars belief.
One thing the Sun isn't guilty of is being a Newspaper.
I'm not for burning written material, but The Sun (& The Mail, Star, Express) don't qualify, so I say make a bonfire
of this disgusting, demeaning material.

[azul]

Toddhopper., on 15 October 2016 - 10:03 AM, said:

All done with no sense of irony. Beggars belief.
One thing the Sun isn't guilty of is being a Newspaper.
I'm not for burning written material, but The Sun (& The Mail, Star, Express) don't qualify, so I say make a bonfire
of this disgusting, demeaning material.

Whatever theses paper are, you don't want them on your case

[tedspireite]

Heavy_Soul, on 15 October 2016 - 08:41 AM, said:

Anyone notice the hypocrisy of the Suns front page today?

What do expect from such a shower of an gutter press newspaper.I can't believe people still buy it after what that had on front page in 1984 headlined MINERS SCUM OF THE EARTH.then there's countless others reasons not to buy it Hillsborough being one and what that said about Liverpool fans.

[Toddhopper.]

azul, on 15 October 2016 - 10:09 AM, said:

Whatever theses paper are, you don't want them on your case

They reflect the ethos of their owners. Can you imagine the bleak, perverted landscape of the mind of Rupert Murdoch?

[Tips M'Gee]

And this from a paper owned by a man whose publication hacked the phone of a 14 year old girl who was raped and murdered.

I bet Milly Dowlers parents take comfort in this headline. The Sun is a piece of sheet I wouldn't wipe my arris on.

Don't buy it please. This or anything owned by Paul (Fascist) Dacre.

[BlueRover52]

Papers will print anything to up their circulation figures.End of the day you're reading someones point of view whatever tabloid you read.When it boils down to it they are all the same.Facts don't seem relevant only sensationalism.

[Skywalker]

My link

Easily the best synopsis I've read on the subject. Well worth a read.

[dim view]

freelander2, on 15 October 2016 - 09:49 AM, said:

I fail to see what impact the result of yesterday's case has on Turner's suitability as the CEO of Chesterfield Football Club.

I have a dream........

The impact will be that we will soon have a new owner, Ched's father in law, who will sack him.

I base this on no more info than wondering why Ashley has suddenly acquired 200,000 'worthless' shares. There must be a reason.

[Stoptalkingbol]

5% of a 5 million transfer fee. The sweet rewards of being horse cack at your job.

[Westbars Spireite]

dim view, on 15 October 2016 - 11:24 AM, said:

I have a dream........

The impact will be that we will soon have a new owner, Ched's father in law, who will sack him.

I base this on no more info than wondering why Ashley has suddenly acquired 200,000 'worthless' shares. There must be a reason.

And turn the club shop into a diamond outlet?

Sounds brill.

[spireitewolf]

tedspireite said:

1476526532[/url]' post='1247553']
What do expect from such a shower of an gutter press newspaper.I can't believe people still buy it after what that had on front page in 1984 headlined MINERS SCUM OF THE EARTH.then there's countless others reasons not to buy it Hillsborough being one and what that said about Liverpool fans.

TOTALLY AGREE !!

[bifocart]

Misnomer, on 14 October 2016 - 05:34 PM, said:

All I can say is I've worked with a lot of footballers and I know exactly how they operate; not many on here can say that they have had regular contact with professional footballers, I think it's just me and CPS, from recollection. I found it quite astonishing that the defence was allowed to utilise a witness who had previously slept with the victim, yet Evans' previous exploits could not be submitted...bizarre. If folk think he's a changed man, they are deluded. And, as a previous poster has suggested, we 'get behind him'...not a chance. He's a very lucky man. Judging by the negs I've received, there are many on here that think his behaviour is acceptable and wouldn't bat an eye if he had subjected their own daughter (if his gf) to the same humiliation....very odd.

Additionally, before folk start blowing DA and referring to him as a shrewd businessman...have a think about the mess we are in.

Anyway, it's done with. I'll leave others to the adoration and false idol worship of a guy with very questionable morals, just because he kicks a football around.

I'm not surprised he's been acquitted..the odds are stacked against women in sexual assault cases and after this verdict the landscape looks even harsher. Evans' crew were allowed to rip up Section 41 of the Youth and Criminal Evidence act, and dangerous precedents are now in place; its a common enough occurrance in everyday life for a woman's sexual history to be used against her, and now it seems likely to happen in Court cases as well.

From todays Guardian...

"It can now be revealed that:

During the appeal case that led to the retrial, lawyers for the crown suggested that the two new witnesses may have been “fed” information by those close to Evans. This claim was rejected by Evans’s side and by the appeal court.

The appeal court judges expressed “a considerable degree of hesitation” before allowing the new evidence of the former partners because it would result in the complainant’s sexual behaviour being subject to forensic scrutiny.

Evans’s girlfriend, Massey, was accused in legal argument during the second trial of offering an “inducement” to a key witness. The prosecution said this had “the flavour of a bribe”. The trial judge disagreed.

The complainant continues to be named and abused on social media, even though the law grants her lifelong anonymity. The police are investigating at least one blog that identified her during the trial."

Chief executive Chris Turner said: “We can now all move forward and focus on football.”
Yeah, because football's just so important isn't it?

[azul]

bifocart, on 15 October 2016 - 12:42 PM, said:

I'm not surprised he's been acquitted..the odds are stacked against women in sexual assault cases and after this verdict the landscape looks even harsher. Evans' crew were allowed to rip up Section 41 of the Youth and Criminal Evidence act, and dangerous precedents are now in place; its a common enough occurrance in everyday life for a woman's sexual history to be used against her, and now it seems likely to happen in Court cases as well.

From todays Guardian...

"It can now be revealed that:

During the appeal case that led to the retrial, lawyers for the crown suggested that the two new witnesses may have been “fed” information by those close to Evans. This claim was rejected by Evans’s side and by the appeal court.

The appeal court judges expressed “a considerable degree of hesitation” before allowing the new evidence of the former partners because it would result in the complainant’s sexual behaviour being subject to forensic scrutiny.

Evans’s girlfriend, Massey, was accused in legal argument during the second trial of offering an “inducement” to a key witness. The prosecution said this had “the flavour of a bribe”. The trial judge disagreed.

The complainant continues to be named and abused on social media, even though the law grants her lifelong anonymity. The police are investigating at least one blog that identified her during the trial."

Chief executive Chris Turner said: “We can now all move forward and focus on football.”
Yeah, because football's just so important isn't it?

The precendence set and the actions of Evan's girlfriend will keep this festering for a while

I wonder what will happen to Massey is the "Court of Public Opinion"

[HistoricWarwick]

Sammy Spireite, on 14 October 2016 - 11:32 AM, said:

If you're suggesting that in years gone by that footballers were some moral bastions of society, then I'd say you are wrong.

Such behaviour that seems to have happened on the night in question, has gone on for years, by men and women of all walks of life. The only difference being that with modern media methods we are now far more likely to hear about it than say 20/30 years ago.

Example, in Paul McGugans days at town, imagine if such things like twitter or instagram were around when he was regularly slumped over the bar in a well known pub on Brampton in the small hours, the night before a match. There would have been a mini media tornado around Saltergate.

No Sammy, my point was that I have a great degree of discomfort associating anything to do with this mans behaviour with football.

Regardless if the outcome the volume of comment and interest is at best wierd.

I have no doubt that there are some people posting on here are only interested in two things.
- he is found not guilty so he can start scoring goals regardless of his behaviour.
- it makes the club a few quid.

If they do, best of luck to them. I reserve my right to think very little of them.

[dim view]

bifocart, on 15 October 2016 - 12:42 PM, said:

I'm not surprised he's been acquitted..the odds are stacked against women in sexual assault cases and after this verdict the landscape looks even harsher. Evans' crew were allowed to rip up Section 41 of the Youth and Criminal Evidence act, and dangerous precedents are now in place; its a common enough occurrance in everyday life for a woman's sexual history to be used against her, and now it seems likely to happen in Court cases as well.

From todays Guardian...

"It can now be revealed that:

During the appeal case that led to the retrial, lawyers for the crown suggested that the two new witnesses may have been “fed” information by those close to Evans. This claim was rejected by Evans’s side and by the appeal court.

The appeal court judges expressed “a considerable degree of hesitation” before allowing the new evidence of the former partners because it would result in the complainant’s sexual behaviour being subject to forensic scrutiny.

Evans’s girlfriend, Massey, was accused in legal argument during the second trial of offering an “inducement” to a key witness. The prosecution said this had “the flavour of a bribe”. The trial judge disagreed.

The complainant continues to be named and abused on social media, even though the law grants her lifelong anonymity. The police are investigating at least one blog that identified her during the trial."

Chief executive Chris Turner said: “We can now all move forward and focus on football.”
Yeah, because football's just so important isn't it?

The North Wales Police and their agenda instigated this process. The poorer the quality of the evidence, the more likely the Act to be compromised.

This post has been edited by dim view: 15 October 2016 - 02:33 PM