Printable View
I'd argue (strongly) that there's more cases of people who actually commit crimes and aren't convicted based on the burden of evidence to prove things beyond doubt (which of course is vital).
In this case a court found him guilty. They have heard all the evidence. I'd guess no one here has (and Gilhooly admitted he hadn't)
He's not arguing he didn't commit the acts BTW, he's arguing over signalling consent.
I'm not sure how my argument could be interpreted in such a way. The presumption of innocence until guilt is legally proven through the determination of a court does happen to be a cornerstone of Western jurisprudence, so, if I'm reading you correctly, it would be you advocating the tossing out the whole legal business altogether if you wanted to dismiss such a crucial pivot of modern-day justice? I do sense just a little hint of sarcasm though. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by dahamsta
I haven't brought any other imaginary or "social" court into it. All I'm saying is that a legal court's finding is no more and no less than a determination by a judge and/or jury and that such courts, being human in construction, are not infallible; sometimes their determinations will conform with the facts and on other rare (you would hope) occasions, regrettably, maybe not. My statement was simply in recognition of that fact and it was to by no means trivialise or dismiss the importance or function of courts of law in our society.
I’m not necessarily saying that fact has any consequence or bearing in this particular case either as I am, similarly, by no means qualified or in any position to offer a certain verdict as to Evans’ guilt. Determinations by a court of law do carry very significant social weight, however, and we, as a pragmatic civilised society (myself included), broadly put our faith in those courts in recognition that they are the most effective method of ensuring the service of justice and of determining the facts of cases so that legal judgments can be made about those facts. A court’s finding will always remain just a judgment on or an interpretation of available evidence and alleged fact rather than a categorical statement or confirmation of absolute truth. If the judgment conforms with the truth, that’s good, but, if not, that’s not so good. We can't attach to a judgment some absolute status simply because we might be so repulsed by the specific act under question and are keen to stress our revulsion in absolute, uncategorical terms as a result.
I was speaking generally to demonstrate why such emotive, loaded and presumptuous language as Dodge had used can be unhelpful and dangerous, because if we are to presuppose that a court's word is absolutely true and correct simply because it says it is so, then it theoretically or tautologically renders any decision of that court absolutely irreversible because the reversal of a decision would be to admit the potential for error. That would be inherently paradoxical. Of course, we know that practical error is possible, and it would be a very grim society in which to live where the legal system absolutely assumed its own theoretical and practical infallibility with no recourse for the overturning of wrongful convictions. It doesn't mean I personally think Evans might have been innocent until a court said otherwise though. I’m in no position to offer any such verdict on his case. I'm just referring to a court's determination. That's all we're in a position to comment on here, unless we witnessed the incident or have an omniscient ability to have mind-read both Evans and the girl involved. Instead, we put faith in the fallible court and justice system - it's the best we have - but I'm not sure we can speak in such absolute terms.
You seem to be saying with absolute certainty that he is guilty though. How do you know that to be true? From where have you attained such knowledge? Haven’t you made a determination yourself based upon the determination of the court? On the basis of probability, your determination might well conform to the facts, but, I’m not sure what qualifies you to say you absolutely know he is guilty. You have a belief based on your perception and an interpretation of what you understand happened, but then there is the truth, which is a separate entity. Indeed, the two may overlap, but they are still distinct and one should not necessarily be assumed to be the same as the other.
I hope I’ve explained that coherently as I’m not sure I have the philosophical vocabulary to truly do justice to what I’m trying to articulate there. Or maybe I'm just needlessly complicating matters. :p
The fact you admit that even in their minority there are far too many of them should convince you that a court's word can/should never be assumed to be infallible. Anyhow that’s a separate discussion and I’m not trying to suggest there has been a miscarriage of justice here.Quote:
Yes, there are miscarriages of justice, too many of them. But they're a tiny minority of cases. The man is guilty. If he believes there's been a miscarriage of justice then I hope he's actually doing something about it, rather than actually just telling people that's the case.
The man was found guilty by a court of law. Can you so surely proclaim "the accused is guilty" in all cases where a court determines the accused guilty or is it just this one for some reason? If it’s just this one, why is that exactly? Would you have said of, say, the Guildford Four or the Birmingham Six that they were absolutely guilty prior to the overturnings simply and solely on the basis of a court having determined them to be guilty in law? I would think and hope not.
As far as Evans is concerned, I understand he has employed a new legal team to fight his case and help him clear his name. This certainly isn’t me fighting some sort of case for him. I’m content to accept the verdict of the court, like yourself, and if he wants to clear his name, he’s entitled to try that. I couldn't care less for him personally, to be honest.
Maybe so, but, as you say, that’s no good reason to flirt with its dismissal. The legal standard of proof (beyond reasonable doubt) is another vital cornerstone of criminal justice and due process in civilised, democratic societies; I suppose the rationale behind it is that your scenario is the lesser of what one might call the two evils. The greater evil would be innocent persons being convicted on much flimsier grounds than those required by the law at present.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dodge
I'm aware he freely acknowledges he engaged in a sexual act, but the question of whether or not consent was given is what the court's determination rested upon. The question of consent (or lack thereof) is what determined the alleged criminality of the act. Just because he committed a sexual act doesn't mean he is legally guilty of rape. You’ve also declared him absolutely guilty. Do you know that consent was absent and, if so, how do you know?Quote:
He's not arguing he didn't commit the acts BTW, he's arguing over signalling consent.
If you think I’m trying to dismiss the court’s findings, by the way, I’m not at all. I’m just saying it’s a determination. It may well be a very sound determination, although I’m not in a position to say with certainty.
Did anyone ever post something up, and completely regret doing so a week later?
Just give it another week. :pQuote:
Originally Posted by nigel-harps1954
Exactly. What on earth has it got to do with the PFAI or their solicitor anyway ?Quote:
Originally Posted by DannyInvincible
They're a business, not a union and they seem to like to weigh-in on matters that they shouldn't and appear to be happiest when someone is talking about them, no matter what the reason.Quote:
Originally Posted by TonyD
Why don't they discuss the merits of the idea that the holocaust never happened while they're at it.
I still can't believe that a solicitor of over 20 years could be capable of lodging their foot so far back in their cake hole.
did anyone read the article in the sun today?it said that Evans is considering joining a LOI club and may live in the North! maybe thats the reason why the PFAI Solicitor is posting that article over the last week!
Well given that you're average uk football club/player thinks the irish league is us and the LOI is them up north maybe he's joining an irish league club!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Martinho II
I'd imagine he'd have to live in the UK as part of his parole conditions so a club in the North would make sense if any of them wanted him.
Maybe Dundalk or Derry?
Ha! That would be some story. And I was just thinking of how I think Evans should be allowed to continue his career but that I would feel conflicted if I was a Sheffield Utd fan...
Don't rule yourselves out here Nige, Kevin McHugh could have a new strike partner. ;)
No chance, Maxi would be waiting for him with petrol can in hand. If he was allowed travel in to the Republic I ould see Pat Fenlon not caring much about his conviction and giving him a go. More likely to Portadown ..Quote:
Originally Posted by nigel-harps1954
Sunday World(I know, I know) had Derry linked to him. From the screengrab I saw it was the from the "Showbiz" section of the paper.Quote:
Originally Posted by SwanVsDalton
He has to stay living in the UK as part of his parole. I still think he'll play in England
If he can get a contract with Sheffield United, I'd be surprised if he suddenly turned around and played in Ireland tbh.
Thats the issue as Sheffield Utd are distancing themselves from him and due to his 'apparent' lack of contrition post sentence he is totally toxic and he will find it tough to get a club even in the lower leagues. I know little of him as a player but maybe he thinks that an IL club would jump at taking on a player of a higher calibre and overlook his past and rebuild from there?Quote:
Originally Posted by pineapple stu
What was the name of that tool who amongst other things was taking pictures of himself surrounded by bags of money, posting them on Twitter, Leon something? He ended up playing up the North when nobody else would have him. Admittedly he was crap as well which didn't help his cause.
Leon Knight?
That's him. He was constantly offering to fight people and giving it the big "I am" on Twitter.
Knight signed for Coleraine for a bit, but did he even train with them? My recollection (which is open to correction) tells me they might have flown him over from London for games.
Played with Glentoran too. Think there was some sort of fallout with him over not going to any training and just turning up for matches if memory serves me right.Quote:
Originally Posted by DannyInvincible
His wiki is here. Decent record in the north, but £1,000 a month to fly him in for games? Bloody hell.
Seems he was kicked out of Glentoran for opposing gay marriage (with some pretty stupid comments), and ended up without a club for two years.
Missed the entire 2012/13 season, having set up a charity page where he was going to donate money for every goal he scored that season.
The FifPro tournament is on again;
http://www.irishexaminer.com/sport/s...ss-305554.html
I see the poor old PFAI solicitor can't make it this year. He has been appointed to the panel of arbitrators for Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) for next 3 years though.
If only Ched Evans knew!Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr A
PFAI looking to look at helping players with education for careers after football. http://www.independent.ie/sport/socc...-31144122.html
I thought, perhaps, this was going to be a good news story of the PFAI finally pulling their finger out and actually doing something to help young footballers. Instead it's McGuinness saying "we have to take action" without absolutely no hint as to who is going to do what. Would be great to see the PFAI pulling their weight here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr A
Also his quote about nobody playing LoI to become rich and famous is ******, there's a well established route to high paid professional football that runs through the LoI, any young player with ambition can use it as a stepping stone to the UK, and hundreds of young fellas are getting more money for playing football a few hours a week than they would otherwise be getting on the dole or on minimum wage.
So salaries have decreased....welcome to the real world McGuinness! Mine went down too and I'm nowhere near what some players were on during their peak. If salaries aren't managed then clubs wouldn't exist. We know where that would leave the players he represents.
"This year the highest earner in the League of Ireland is on €40,000 per year"
This bit is Bullsh1t, and Lazy journalism
McGuinness is on something like €80k a year himself as full time Chairman.
Yeah, everyone knows Fahey is on 20k a week.Quote:
Originally Posted by vinnie
Well the agency won't know every wage for a start. Not every player is signed up with them
Some strange comments from PFAI recently- saying Wexford should not have been allowed in the premier. Absolutely bizarre stuff.
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/fi...c3da011dcd1bca
Link via twitter just in case: https://twitter.com/YeSecondPost/sta...36258088538112
Quote:
“But even if there is change, we still want stability. It’s better that clubs pay what they can afford rather than make promises they cannot keep. And yet, the whole structure of how football is run in this country needs to be looked at. Wexford Youths, and teams like that, should not be allowed into the Premier Division. A minimum amount of professionals should be required, and a minimum spend should be in place, before a club is granted entry to the country’s highest league. There should be a minimum standard for teams to aspire to, before they get into the Premier Division. It is ridiculous that there is not a minimum wage for players in place.
Bonkers stuff. The difference between professionals and part timers in our league is difficult to gauge at the best of times. Wexford had a few lads on pro contracts but id say many of the amateur lads were doing just as much training.
While it would be nice to have some rules in place like a minimum wage for PD players and a minimum amount of professionals per club etc, i don't think it would really work in our league - at least not at the moment because wages for professionals aren't high enough to warrant a guy with a good job or big career ambitions to quit his job.
Even the club with the biggest budget last season couldn't offer McMillan enough money to give up his architecture job completely. he still does at least 20 hrs a week.
If we reach a stage where each team can afford to have at least 5/6 professionals (only way i could see this happening is if prize money for every position in the league is dramatically increased) it would be a good idea but i don't see that happening soon.
Gob****e makes it sound as if there is slave labour at Wexford Youths. We set our stall out as an amateur club and we pay minimal expenses. Over the last decade this has worked extremely well for the club AND the players who have pulled on our shirt.
I'd say we have the highest turnover of player in LOI and that is NOT because there is anything wrong with the club, it is because we welcome any player, who thinks he is good enough, and provide an opportunity to showcase his talents. We get a season or two from the raw talent and they get a chance at a contact with a big club if they're good enough. Personally, I don't think the club will progress on this basis, but we are providing a window that most other clubs don't to fringe players.
What's the solution? Perhaps kick us out and make it a licencing requirement to have every club put "Storrry Buud" on it's crest
Still on with the amateur but expenses line?
PFAI comment is daft. The players earn what they're worth - way more than it, in some cases.
I'd say that's what they're angling for alright.Quote:
Originally Posted by oldyouth
So will this include Cabinteely too as they are an amateur club? In all fairness to Wexford their policy has made them sustainable and progressive to a certain extent which should be commended, a number of very good players have come through the club and moved on, the downside of the policy. Look at the players who left over the last few weeks, it should be the club and players choice, they pay their fees to play (money for nothing) and fulfil their fixtures with facilities better than a lot of other clubs!
Should professionals who can't beat amateurs really be looking for more money?