Claiming papal-style infallibility is hardly an argument.
Still, if I'm blind to your fantasies, I'll count that as a compliment.
No you are just blind to the comments on these pages. Given your dubious grasp of reality exhibited in the past when it comes to matters such as the EU I am not surprised to see that extends to anything which might run counter to your own fantasy sunlit uplands of Tory Nirvana.
As I (and others) have said often before, the hypocrisy of PB Tories is stunning.
This guy is pretty awful, especially considering he maintains his innocence - but shouldn't there be a general principle that once people are punished for a crime, they are free to get on with their lives?
The first week of Jan polls will be very interesting.
Yep. The Tories' stable position for the last 3 months seems to have ended, on a slight downward tick. I don't think we'll see a new point until we have a few polls this side of New Years.
This guy is pretty awful, especially considering he maintains his innocence - but shouldn't there be a general principle that once people are punished for a crime, they are free to get on with their lives?
I have no particular sympathy for him, but this is just getting stupid.
If MoJ is really that concerned about rapists on our streets maybe they should spend more time in Rotherham.
This guy is pretty awful, especially considering he maintains his innocence - but shouldn't there be a general principle that once people are punished for a crime, they are free to get on with their lives?
Is it just while he is out on license. Once this period is over, he's free to do what he wants, surely?
This guy is pretty awful, especially considering he maintains his innocence - but shouldn't there be a general principle that once people are punished for a crime, they are free to get on with their lives?
Perhaps , he actually is innocent , it took 16 years before the Bitmingham Six were found to be innocent .
The first week of Jan polls will be very interesting.
Yep. The Tories' stable position for the last 3 months seems to have ended, on a slight downward tick. I don't think we'll see a new point until we have a few polls this side of New Years.
Yes - last average point centred on 21/12, so period ended on 28/12.
Next average point centred on 5/1, period starts on 29/12.
OK, we should never read too much into any poll or set of polls but I think there will be a big difference between Lab kicking off Jan with a lead of 1% or 3%. 1% will look very vulnerable whereas 3% will look pretty solid.
This guy is pretty awful, especially considering he maintains his innocence - but shouldn't there be a general principle that once people are punished for a crime, they are free to get on with their lives?
Why is he awful for maintaining his innocence? Maybe he is innocent
Three people know the truth, two say he is innocent
OK, we should never read too much into any poll or set of polls but I think there will be a big difference between Lab kicking off Jan with a lead of 1% or 3%. 1% will look very vulnerable whereas 3% will look pretty solid.
This guy is pretty awful, especially considering he maintains his innocence - but shouldn't there be a general principle that once people are punished for a crime, they are free to get on with their lives?
Strikes me as he could have a case under human rights laws.
This guy is pretty awful, especially considering he maintains his innocence - but shouldn't there be a general principle that once people are punished for a crime, they are free to get on with their lives?
Why is he awful for maintaining his innocence? Maybe he is innocent
Three people know the truth, two say he is innocent
Twelve of his peers in a court of law who heard the two say he was innocent thought not.
This guy is pretty awful, especially considering he maintains his innocence - but shouldn't there be a general principle that once people are punished for a crime, they are free to get on with their lives?
Why is he awful for maintaining his innocence? Maybe he is innocent
Three people know the truth, two say he is innocent
He may well be innocent. But he's still pretty awful as an individual for his behaviour, even if there was consent.
This guy is pretty awful, especially considering he maintains his innocence - but shouldn't there be a general principle that once people are punished for a crime, they are free to get on with their lives?
Nothing wrong with maintaining your innocence if you actually aren't guilty. Maybe he didn't do what he was convicted of. He's the only one who really knows. That's the dilemma of an innocent prisoner approaching a parole hearing - a false admission of guilt gets you out earlier.
Having served on a jury in the UK and two in Gib and seen how they arrived at their conclusions I certainly wouldn't ever wish my fate in the hands of 12 random nutters off the street.
This guy is pretty awful, especially considering he maintains his innocence - but shouldn't there be a general principle that once people are punished for a crime, they are free to get on with their lives?
Why is he awful for maintaining his innocence? Maybe he is innocent
Three people know the truth, two say he is innocent
Twelve of his peers in a court of law who heard the two say he was innocent thought not.
So does that mean he is a bad person for maintaining his innocence?
This guy is pretty awful, especially considering he maintains his innocence - but shouldn't there be a general principle that once people are punished for a crime, they are free to get on with their lives?
Nothing wrong with maintaining your innocence if you actually aren't guilty. Maybe he didn't do what he was convicted of. He's the only one who really knows. That's the dilemma of an innocent prisoner approaching a parole hearing - a false admission of guilt gets you out earlier.
Having served on a jury in the UK and two in Gib and seen how they arrived at their conclusions I certainly wouldn't ever wish my fate in the hands of 12 random nutters off the street.
With regards to the 12 nutters... It's the best we've come up with!
NP Yes, I enjoyed Mockingjay too, the Hobbit was OK as a closing film, but I think I have had my fill of Tolkien movies after a decade of them. I also quite enjoyed Exodus Gods and Kings, especially the Plague scenes very well done and while Bale is good as Moses, Joel Edgerton was an excellent Pharoah
This guy is pretty awful, especially considering he maintains his innocence - but shouldn't there be a general principle that once people are punished for a crime, they are free to get on with their lives?
Why is he awful for maintaining his innocence? Maybe he is innocent
Three people know the truth, two say he is innocent
Twelve of his peers in a court of law who heard the two say he was innocent thought not.
So does that mean he is a bad person for maintaining his innocence?
It means he's a guilty person and as a convicted rapist a bad person too.
This guy is pretty awful, especially considering he maintains his innocence - but shouldn't there be a general principle that once people are punished for a crime, they are free to get on with their lives?
Why is he awful for maintaining his innocence? Maybe he is innocent
Three people know the truth, two say he is innocent
He may well be innocent. But he's still pretty awful as an individual for his behaviour, even if there was consent.
No real opinion but that makes two other people pretty awful as well... Does having a threesome make you an awful person then?
But the post I responded to said he was pretty awful "especially considering he maintains his innocence "
This guy is pretty awful, especially considering he maintains his innocence - but shouldn't there be a general principle that once people are punished for a crime, they are free to get on with their lives?
Why is he awful for maintaining his innocence? Maybe he is innocent
Three people know the truth, two say he is innocent
Twelve of his peers in a court of law who heard the two say he was innocent thought not.
So does that mean he is a bad person for maintaining his innocence?
It means he's a guilty person and as a convicted rapist a bad person too.
So the Birmingham Six were bad people until they were found innocent, despite being innocent all along?
Unlike like all other pollsters Opinium does not, at the moment, issue a regional breakdown so it's not possible to work out the swing in England & Wales - where all the LAB-CON marginals are.
Unlike like all other pollsters Opinium does not, at the moment, issue a regional breakdown so it's not possible to work out the swing in England & Wales - where all the LAB-CON marginals are.
A graph with smooth lines from point A to Z would be handy for all the Tories who call "Peak Kipper" every other day
No real opinion but that makes two other people pretty awful as well... Does having a threesome make you an awful person then?
But the post I responded to said he was pretty awful "especially considering he maintains his innocence "
Why especially because of that?
The fact he won't admit his guilt does have some relevance in whether he should be allowed to get on with his career without restrictions.
The point I was making was even though he hasn't admitted his guilt, there should be a line that is drawn where someone is allowed to get on with their life/career after serving their punishment.
This guy is pretty awful, especially considering he maintains his innocence - but shouldn't there be a general principle that once people are punished for a crime, they are free to get on with their lives?
Why is he awful for maintaining his innocence? Maybe he is innocent
Three people know the truth, two say he is innocent
Twelve of his peers in a court of law who heard the two say he was innocent thought not.
So does that mean he is a bad person for maintaining his innocence?
It means he's a guilty person and as a convicted rapist a bad person too.
So the Birmingham Six were bad people until they were found innocent, despite being innocent all along?
Nice guy you are
Of course , one of the problems with the Birmingham Six was that they were bad people ( by most people's standards ) even prior to being found guilty of a crime which they did not commit .
This guy is pretty awful, especially considering he maintains his innocence - but shouldn't there be a general principle that once people are punished for a crime, they are free to get on with their lives?
Nothing wrong with maintaining your innocence if you actually aren't guilty. Maybe he didn't do what he was convicted of. He's the only one who really knows. That's the dilemma of an innocent prisoner approaching a parole hearing - a false admission of guilt gets you out earlier.
Having served on a jury in the UK and two in Gib and seen how they arrived at their conclusions I certainly wouldn't ever wish my fate in the hands of 12 random nutters off the street.
With regards to the 12 nutters... It's the best we've come up with!
There are other tests with a much better success ratio.
As we all know from that famous historical documentary made by Prof Cleese - witches float (because they are made of wood) which means that if you throw them in a lake and they survive you should burn them!
This guy is pretty awful, especially considering he maintains his innocence - but shouldn't there be a general principle that once people are punished for a crime, they are free to get on with their lives?
Why is he awful for maintaining his innocence? Maybe he is innocent
Three people know the truth, two say he is innocent
He may well be innocent. But he's still pretty awful as an individual for his behaviour, even if there was consent.
No real opinion but that makes two other people pretty awful as well... Does having a threesome make you an awful person then?
But the post I responded to said he was pretty awful "especially considering he maintains his innocence "
Why especially because of that?
Only 3 people know the truth. I don't. I don't think he should be punished by the mob for maintaining his innocence.
Isn't he married/engaged (and was at the time)? If so having sex with a random woman makes you a pretty awful person.
No real opinion but that makes two other people pretty awful as well... Does having a threesome make you an awful person then?
But the post I responded to said he was pretty awful "especially considering he maintains his innocence "
Why especially because of that?
The fact he won't admit his guilt does have some relevance in whether he should be allowed to get on with his career without restrictions.
The point I was making was even though he hasn't admitted his guilt, there should be a line that is drawn where someone is allowed to get on with their life/career after serving their punishment.
Doesn't make sense to me what you're saying but never mind
No real opinion but that makes two other people pretty awful as well... Does having a threesome make you an awful person then?
But the post I responded to said he was pretty awful "especially considering he maintains his innocence "
Why especially because of that?
The fact he won't admit his guilt does have some relevance in whether he should be allowed to get on with his career without restrictions.
The point I was making was even though he hasn't admitted his guilt, there should be a line that is drawn where someone is allowed to get on with their life/career after serving their punishment. Surely anyone has the right to maintain their innocence and, potentially, to appeal against conviction.
No real opinion but that makes two other people pretty awful as well... Does having a threesome make you an awful person then?
But the post I responded to said he was pretty awful "especially considering he maintains his innocence "
Why especially because of that?
The fact he won't admit his guilt does have some relevance in whether he should be allowed to get on with his career without restrictions.
The point I was making was, even though he hasn't admitted his guilt, there should be a line that is drawn where someone is allowed to get on with their life/career after serving their punishment.
Why should someone who believes they are innocent admit their guilt . It would therefore make it pointless in appealing against their conviction .
This guy is pretty awful, especially considering he maintains his innocence - but shouldn't there be a general principle that once people are punished for a crime, they are free to get on with their lives?
Why is he awful for maintaining his innocence? Maybe he is innocent
Three people know the truth, two say he is innocent
Twelve of his peers in a court of law who heard the two say he was innocent thought not.
So does that mean he is a bad person for maintaining his innocence?
It means he's a guilty person and as a convicted rapist a bad person too.
So the Birmingham Six were bad people until they were found innocent, despite being innocent all along?
Nice guy you are
Thank you.
I fall into the category of the majority of people who broadly trust the British jury system and am quite willing to change my mind should new evidence come to hand.
Perhaps you might wish to change to a rather vulgar Continental or EU system of justice. I prefer good old Blighty.
Sadly a lot of accidents seem to be happening at the moment: a boat has overturned off the coast of Scotland, and a light aircraft has crashed in Hampshire.
This guy is pretty awful, especially considering he maintains his innocence - but shouldn't there be a general principle that once people are punished for a crime, they are free to get on with their lives?
Why is he awful for maintaining his innocence? Maybe he is innocent
Three people know the truth, two say he is innocent
He may well be innocent. But he's still pretty awful as an individual for his behaviour, even if there was consent.
No real opinion but that makes two other people pretty awful as well... Does having a threesome make you an awful person then?
But the post I responded to said he was pretty awful "especially considering he maintains his innocence "
Why especially because of that?
Only 3 people know the truth. I don't. I don't think he should be punished by the mob for maintaining his innocence.
Isn't he married/engaged (and was at the time)? If so having sex with a random woman makes you a pretty awful person.
Yes I agree that having sex with someone else while engaged isn't a good trait. The girlfriend has stood by him too! V odd
There seems to be a lot of people on their high horse about this case, applying rules to Ched Evans that they wouldn't if he wasn't a footballer. The woman heading the campaign is gushing over Mike Tyson while refusing to watch a club that might employ Evans.. wtf?
This guy is pretty awful, especially considering he maintains his innocence - but shouldn't there be a general principle that once people are punished for a crime, they are free to get on with their lives?
Why is he awful for maintaining his innocence? Maybe he is innocent
Three people know the truth, two say he is innocent
Twelve of his peers in a court of law who heard the two say he was innocent thought not.
So does that mean he is a bad person for maintaining his innocence?
It means he's a guilty person and as a convicted rapist a bad person too.
So the Birmingham Six were bad people until they were found innocent, despite being innocent all along?
Nice guy you are
Thank you.
I fall into the category of the majority of people who broadly trust the British jury system and am quite willing to change my mind should new evidence come to hand.
Perhaps you might wish to change to a rather vulgar Continental or EU system of justice. I prefer good old Blighty.
I couldn't really care less what category you fall into or what you prefer... who asked?
This guy is pretty awful, especially considering he maintains his innocence - but shouldn't there be a general principle that once people are punished for a crime, they are free to get on with their lives?
Why is he awful for maintaining his innocence? Maybe he is innocent
Three people know the truth, two say he is innocent
Twelve of his peers in a court of law who heard the two say he was innocent thought not.
So does that mean he is a bad person for maintaining his innocence?
It means he's a guilty person and as a convicted rapist a bad person too.
So the Birmingham Six were bad people until they were found innocent, despite being innocent all along?
Nice guy you are
Thank you.
I fall into the category of the majority of people who broadly trust the British jury system and am quite willing to change my mind should new evidence come to hand.
Perhaps you might wish to change to a rather vulgar Continental or EU system of justice. I prefer good old Blighty.
Serious error of judgment to "trust" the British judicial system, especially as there are innumerable miscarriages of justice.
IF Evans maintains his innocence, no one is in a position to criticise him, because only he and the girl know for certain.
What price we find out that the CPS withheld evidence that was of use to the defence? It wouldn't be the first time....
This guy is pretty awful, especially considering he maintains his innocence - but shouldn't there be a general principle that once people are punished for a crime, they are free to get on with their lives?
He hasn't finished being punished yet, he was released on license 30 months into a 5 year sentence. he is still subject to Probation conditions.
While I believe in the rehabilitation of offenders, and don't believe that people should be penalised for maintaining their innocence, it does rather stick in the throat that Mr Evans may be able to go back to the fame and fortune of professional football. Maybe he should start off burger flipping.
I'm going to go with the court judgement - he raped a woman.
He denies it.
That makes him an awful person.
If he had any dignity and respect for the victim, he'd have admitted his guilt. That would have, in most reasonable peoples eyes, make him a very slightly less awful person.
It would also impact on whether he should be allowed to go abroad to pursue his career after serving his time.
Is what I'm saying really controversial?
It's kinda ironic that my original point was that EVEN IF SOMEONE MAINTAINS THEIR INNOCENCE after being convicted, I'm uncomfortable with the current system which places (possibly in this case) an unreasonable restriction on his liberty.
Perhaps I should have worded my earlier posts better.
This guy is pretty awful, especially considering he maintains his innocence - but shouldn't there be a general principle that once people are punished for a crime, they are free to get on with their lives?
He hasn't finished being punished yet, he was released on license 30 months into a 5 year sentence. he is still subject to Probation conditions.
While I believe in the rehabilitation of offenders, and don't believe that people should be penalised for maintaining their innocence, it does rather stick in the throat that Mr Evans may be able to go back to the fame and fortune of professional football. Maybe he should start off burger flipping.
That should apply to everyone else who is released from prison on probation then. You can't go back into a job as good as the one you had previously.
No reason at all why footballers should be treated differently
This guy is pretty awful, especially considering he maintains his innocence - but shouldn't there be a general principle that once people are punished for a crime, they are free to get on with their lives?
He hasn't finished being punished yet, he was released on license 30 months into a 5 year sentence. he is still subject to Probation conditions.
While I believe in the rehabilitation of offenders, and don't believe that people should be penalised for maintaining their innocence, it does rather stick in the throat that Mr Evans may be able to go back to the fame and fortune of professional football. Maybe he should start off burger flipping.
That should apply to everyone else who is released from prison on probation then. You can't go back into a job as good as the one you had previously.
No reason at all why footballers should be treated differently
I think the situation is that legally, he can't work overseas. There is nothing legally preventing him getting his old job back in this country. Of course, ianal.
I'm going to go with the court judgement - he raped a woman.
He denies it.
That makes him an awful person.
If he had any dignity and respect for the victim, he'd have admitted his guilt. That would have, in most reasonable peoples eyes, make him a less awful person.
It would also impact on whether he should be allowed to go abroad to pursue his career after serving his time.
Is what I'm saying really controversial?
It's kinda ironic that my original point was that EVEN IF SOMEONE MAINTAINS THEIR INNOCENCE after being convicted, I'm uncomfortable with the current system which places (possibly in this case) an unreasonable restriction on his liberty.
Perhaps I should have worded my earlier posts better.
I think it is controversial to say someone is especially awful because they maintain their innocence, yes.
The rest of what you said is fair enough, but I just don't get what is especially awful about that part..
Threesomes? matter of taste Cheating on beloved? Pretty awful Rape? Awful Maintaining innocence of something you say you didnt do? Fair enough
NP Yes, I enjoyed Mockingjay too, the Hobbit was OK as a closing film, but I think I have had my fill of Tolkien movies after a decade of them. I also quite enjoyed Exodus Gods and Kings, especially the Plague scenes very well done and while Bale is good as Moses, Joel Edgerton was an excellent Pharoah
I greatly enjoyed the Fellowship of the Ring and the Two Towers, but I thought the Return of the King was a complete travesty.
I'm going to go with the court judgement - he raped a woman.
He denies it.
That makes him an awful person.
If he had any dignity and respect for the victim, he'd have admitted his guilt. That would have, in most reasonable peoples eyes, make him a less awful person.
It would also impact on whether he should be allowed to go abroad to pursue his career after serving his time.
Is what I'm saying really controversial?
It's kinda ironic that my original point was that EVEN IF SOMEONE MAINTAINS THEIR INNOCENCE after being convicted, I'm uncomfortable with the current system which places (possibly in this case) an unreasonable restriction on his liberty.
Perhaps I should have worded my earlier posts better.
You do seem to be wording things very poorly. The latest attempt seems to be that it is a refusal to admit guilt which renders him 'awful' rather than the crime itself. I'm sure you didn't mean anything that silly.
The following paragraphs are not much better. Is nobody allowed to maintain their innocence when they believe themselves victims of a miscarriage of justice, or is it just some offences which are too serious for appeals?
This guy is pretty awful, especially considering he maintains his innocence - but shouldn't there be a general principle that once people are punished for a crime, they are free to get on with their lives?
Why is he awful for maintaining his innocence? Maybe he is innocent
Three people know the truth, two say he is innocent
Twelve of his peers in a court of law who heard the two say he was innocent thought not.
So does that mean he is a bad person for maintaining his innocence?
It means he's a guilty person and as a convicted rapist a bad person too.
So the Birmingham Six were bad people until they were found innocent, despite being innocent all along?
Nice guy you are
Thank you.
I fall into the category of the majority of people who broadly trust the British jury system and am quite willing to change my mind should new evidence come to hand.
Perhaps you might wish to change to a rather vulgar Continental or EU system of justice. I prefer good old Blighty.
Serious error of judgment to "trust" the British judicial system, especially as there are innumerable miscarriages of justice.
IF Evans maintains his innocence, no one is in a position to criticise him, because only he and the girl know for certain.
What price we find out that the CPS withheld evidence that was of use to the defence? It wouldn't be the first time....
I know of no judicial system where legal errors or miscarriages may be eliminated but would contend that the jury system offers the best measure of justice available.
I do not criticise Evans for his stance but hold that the law presently regards him as a guilty rapist and my position reflects this but may change if new evidence emerges. I don't think this an unreasonable position.
I'm going to go with the court judgement - he raped a woman.
He denies it.
That makes him an awful person.
If he had any dignity and respect for the victim, he'd have admitted his guilt. That would have, in most reasonable peoples eyes, make him a less awful person.
It would also impact on whether he should be allowed to go abroad to pursue his career after serving his time.
Is what I'm saying really controversial?
It's kinda ironic that my original point was that EVEN IF SOMEONE MAINTAINS THEIR INNOCENCE after being convicted, I'm uncomfortable with the current system which places (possibly in this case) an unreasonable restriction on his liberty.
Perhaps I should have worded my earlier posts better.
Not really, as you worded your post very precisely. You're now trying to deflect attention on to the second half of your comment whereas others are quite rightly not letting the first half drop
This guy is pretty awful, especially considering he maintains his innocence
I think everyone will agree that your now-preferred part of your comment is uncontroversial.
This guy is pretty awful, especially considering he maintains his innocence - but shouldn't there be a general principle that once people are punished for a crime, they are free to get on with their lives?
He hasn't finished being punished yet, he was released on license 30 months into a 5 year sentence. he is still subject to Probation conditions.
While I believe in the rehabilitation of offenders, and don't believe that people should be penalised for maintaining their innocence, it does rather stick in the throat that Mr Evans may be able to go back to the fame and fortune of professional football. Maybe he should start off burger flipping.
That should apply to everyone else who is released from prison on probation then. You can't go back into a job as good as the one you had previously.
No reason at all why footballers should be treated differently
I think the situation is that legally, he can't work overseas. There is nothing legally preventing him getting his old job back in this country. Of course, ianal.
Nope. The MoJ is clearly talking bollocks, besides their decision being manifestly unjust.
@CounselTweets 16m16 minutes ago Restriction on working abroad (EU) whilst on sex offenders register would be illegal see H [2014] EWHC 2799 (Admin). #ChedEvans @MoJGovUK
I thought it was to do with him being released on license, not that he was on the sex offenders register?
I do not criticise Evans for his stance but hold that the law presently regards him as a guilty rapist and my position reflects this but may change if new evidence emerges. I don't think this an unreasonable position.
[/snip]
That is indeed a completely reasonable position. The italicised words are the very opposite of Pong's point and the whole reason for this minor thread diversion. Pong does criticise Evans for his stance.
This guy is pretty awful, especially considering he maintains his innocence - but shouldn't there be a general principle that once people are punished for a crime, they are free to get on with their lives?
He hasn't finished being punished yet, he was released on license 30 months into a 5 year sentence. he is still subject to Probation conditions.
While I believe in the rehabilitation of offenders, and don't believe that people should be penalised for maintaining their innocence, it does rather stick in the throat that Mr Evans may be able to go back to the fame and fortune of professional football. Maybe he should start off burger flipping.
That should apply to everyone else who is released from prison on probation then. You can't go back into a job as good as the one you had previously.
No reason at all why footballers should be treated differently
I think the situation is that legally, he can't work overseas. There is nothing legally preventing him getting his old job back in this country. Of course, ianal.
Nope. The MoJ is clearly talking bollocks, besides their decision being manifestly unjust.
@CounselTweets 16m16 minutes ago Restriction on working abroad (EU) whilst on sex offenders register would be illegal see H [2014] EWHC 2799 (Admin). #ChedEvans @MoJGovUK
This guy is pretty awful, especially considering he maintains his innocence - but shouldn't there be a general principle that once people are punished for a crime, they are free to get on with their lives?
Why is he awful for maintaining his innocence? Maybe he is innocent
Three people know the truth, two say he is innocent
Twelve of his peers in a court of law who heard the two say he was innocent thought not.
So does that mean he is a bad person for maintaining his innocence?
It means he's a guilty person and as a convicted rapist a bad person too.
So the Birmingham Six were bad people until they were found innocent, despite being innocent all along?
Nice guy you are
Thank you.
I fall into the category of the majority of people who broadly trust the British jury system and am quite willing to change my mind should new evidence come to hand.
Perhaps you might wish to change to a rather vulgar Continental or EU system of justice. I prefer good old Blighty.
What price we find out that the CPS withheld evidence that was of use to the defence? It wouldn't be the first time....
I know of no judicial system where legal errors or miscarriages may be eliminated but would contend that the jury system offers the best measure of justice available.
I do not criticise Evans for his stance but hold that the law presently regards him as a guilty rapist and my position reflects this but may change if new evidence emerges. I don't think this an unreasonable position.
The sordid but morally blurred circumstances of the rape are fairly crucial, too. He didn't jump out of a bush with a knife.
"TV presenter Charlie Webster resigned yesterday as patron of the club. “I don’t believe a convicted rapist should go back into the community to represent the community,” she said."
Charlie Webster @CharlieCW · Sep 10 Just bumped into Mike Tyson in the hotel lobby as I was randomly talking about him! I chickened out on asking for a photo...damn ;-)
This guy is pretty awful, especially considering he maintains his innocence - but shouldn't there be a general principle that once people are punished for a crime, they are free to get on with their lives?
He hasn't finished being punished yet, he was released on license 30 months into a 5 year sentence. he is still subject to Probation conditions.
While I believe in the rehabilitation of offenders, and don't believe that people should be penalised for maintaining their innocence, it does rather stick in the throat that Mr Evans may be able to go back to the fame and fortune of professional football. Maybe he should start off burger flipping.
That should apply to everyone else who is released from prison on probation then. You can't go back into a job as good as the one you had previously.
No reason at all why footballers should be treated differently
Most people find it very difficult to find a job on release from prison, let alone earn what they used to. I don't see why a footballer should be any different.
This guy is pretty awful, especially considering he maintains his innocence - but shouldn't there be a general principle that once people are punished for a crime, they are free to get on with their lives?
He hasn't finished being punished yet, he was released on license 30 months into a 5 year sentence. he is still subject to Probation conditions.
While I believe in the rehabilitation of offenders, and don't believe that people should be penalised for maintaining their innocence, it does rather stick in the throat that Mr Evans may be able to go back to the fame and fortune of professional football. Maybe he should start off burger flipping.
That should apply to everyone else who is released from prison on probation then. You can't go back into a job as good as the one you had previously.
No reason at all why footballers should be treated differently
I think the situation is that legally, he can't work overseas. There is nothing legally preventing him getting his old job back in this country. Of course, ianal.
All the statement from the MoJ says is that it is "impractical" for him to work overseas given the need for regular meetings with his case officer. Which may or may not be true - I doubt it.
I'm much more uncomfortable with the mob deciding that the court-sanctioned judgement is insufficient and latching on to one individual regardless of the rights and wrong of the case & regardless of whether there are other more egregious cases.
This guy is pretty awful, especially considering he maintains his innocence - but shouldn't there be a general principle that once people are punished for a crime, they are free to get on with their lives?
Why is he awful for maintaining his innocence? Maybe he is innocent
Three people know the truth, two say he is innocent
Twelve of his peers in a court of law who heard the two say he was innocent thought not.
So does that mean he is a bad person for maintaining his innocence?
It means he's a guilty person and as a convicted rapist a bad person too.
So the Birmingham Six were bad people until they were found innocent, despite being innocent all along?
Nice guy you are
Thank you.
I fall into the category of the majority of people who broadly trust the British jury system and am quite willing to change my mind should new evidence come to hand.
Perhaps you might wish to change to a rather vulgar Continental or EU system of justice. I prefer good old Blighty.
Serious error of judgment to "trust" the British judicial system, especially as there are innumerable miscarriages of justice.
IF Evans maintains his innocence, no one is in a position to criticise him, because only he and the girl know for certain.
What price we find out that the CPS withheld evidence that was of use to the defence? It wouldn't be the first time....
I know of no judicial system where legal errors or miscarriages may be eliminated but would contend that the jury system offers the best measure of justice available.
I do not criticise Evans for his stance but hold that the law presently regards him as a guilty rapist and my position reflects this but may change if new evidence emerges. I don't think this an unreasonable position.
Your position isn't unreasonable, nor is Evans's despite being found guilty. There are any number of people still in prison because they refuse to "admit" their guilt. Some of them are probably innocent, but doing life.. There are lots of instances of life sentences being overturned after n yrs inside...
This guy is pretty awful, especially considering he maintains his innocence - but shouldn't there be a general principle that once people are punished for a crime, they are free to get on with their lives?
He hasn't finished being punished yet, he was released on license 30 months into a 5 year sentence. he is still subject to Probation conditions.
While I believe in the rehabilitation of offenders, and don't believe that people should be penalised for maintaining their innocence, it does rather stick in the throat that Mr Evans may be able to go back to the fame and fortune of professional football. Maybe he should start off burger flipping.
That should apply to everyone else who is released from prison on probation then. You can't go back into a job as good as the one you had previously.
No reason at all why footballers should be treated differently
Most people find it very difficult to find a job on release from prison, let alone earn what they used to. I don't see why a footballer should be any different.
But if a non footballer did get a job that paid what they used to get on release from prison, you think they should be stopped?
This guy is pretty awful, especially considering he maintains his innocence - but shouldn't there be a general principle that once people are punished for a crime, they are free to get on with their lives?
He hasn't finished being punished yet, he was released on license 30 months into a 5 year sentence. he is still subject to Probation conditions.
While I believe in the rehabilitation of offenders, and don't believe that people should be penalised for maintaining their innocence, it does rather stick in the throat that Mr Evans may be able to go back to the fame and fortune of professional football. Maybe he should start off burger flipping.
That should apply to everyone else who is released from prison on probation then. You can't go back into a job as good as the one you had previously.
No reason at all why footballers should be treated differently
I think the situation is that legally, he can't work overseas. There is nothing legally preventing him getting his old job back in this country. Of course, ianal.
Nope. The MoJ is clearly talking bollocks, besides their decision being manifestly unjust.
@CounselTweets 16m16 minutes ago Restriction on working abroad (EU) whilst on sex offenders register would be illegal see H [2014] EWHC 2799 (Admin). #ChedEvans @MoJGovUK
That should get the usual suspects frothing.
To be fair to the EU as I understand it, it would be illegal for a country to prevent one of their own citizens working in another EU country but it would not be illegal for the other country to be presented with the evidence that the person was (for example) on the sex offenders register and be able to make its own decision to ban him from entering.
So a blanket ban imposed by one country on working in the rest of the EU would be illegal but a ban on entering an individual country made by that country would be legal.
To me that actually seems a reasonable system. A country should have the right to exclude those they consider undesirable or a threat to their citizens.
Mr. F, why? [Not disagreeing, but I'm not as au fait with Tolkien lore as some].
Don't get me started, but I'll answer anyway:-
1. Denethor. Book Denethor is nuanced. He's a fine ruler, if proud and overconfident, and on poor terms with Faramir. He's utterly committed to defending his people against Sauron, a good commander, and his will only breaks at the last moment, when Faramir is apparently dying, and Sauron feeds him false information. Film Denethor is a mean, selfish, cowardly, treacherous, arsehole, who ought to have been killed years ago.
2. The Army of the Dead. In the Book, they play a limited but important role. In the film, they're the worst kind of deus ex machina, wiping out Sauron's army in a matter of seconds, and making the ride of the Rohirrim and Eowyn's killing the Witch King totally pointless.
3. Gimli. The least funny funny man in cinema.
4. The horrible cut and paste of Sam and Frodo's journey from Cirith Ungol to Mount Doom. For no apparent reason, they're shown in different costumes half-way through.
5. Cutting the Mouth of Sauron from the film.
6. Frodo turning against Sam for no good reason, just before they get attacked by Shelob.
7. Hollywood tactics. For no apparent reason, Aragorn's army outside the Black Gate breaks ranks and charges an army that outnumbers them 20 to 1.
"he develops a number of the themes he would explore in later novels, including fringe religions and cult leaders. His subsequent novel, Platform (2001), earned him a wider reputation. It is a romance told mostly in the first-person by a 40-year-old male arts administrator, with many sex scenes and an approving attitude towards prostitution and sex tourism. The novel's depiction of life and its explicit criticism of Islam"
must be something about the surname Thomas. You've got a doppelganger.
Mr. F, why? [Not disagreeing, but I'm not as au fait with Tolkien lore as some].
Don't get me started, but I'll answer anyway:-
1. Denethor. Book Denethor is nuanced. He's a fine ruler, if proud and overconfident, and on poor terms with Faramir. He's utterly committed to defending his people against Sauron, a good commander, and his will only breaks at the last moment, when Faramir is apparently dying, and Sauron feeds him false information. Film Denethor is a mean, selfish, cowardly, treacherous, arsehole, who ought to have been killed years ago.
2. The Army of the Dead. In the Book, they play a limited but important role. In the film, they're the worst kind of deus ex machina, wiping out Sauron's army in a matter of seconds, and making the ride of the Rohirrim and Eowyn's killing the Witch King totally pointless.
3. Gimli. The least funny funny man in cinema.
4. The horrible cut and paste of Sam and Frodo's journey from Cirith Ungol to Mount Doom. For no apparent reason, they're shown in different costumes half-way through.
5. Cutting the Mouth of Sauron from the film.
6. Frodo turning against Sam for no good reason, just before they get attacked by Shelob.
7. Hollywood tactics. For no apparent reason, Aragorn's army outside the Black Gate breaks ranks and charges an army that outnumbers them 20 to 1.
You still can't explain why Frodo just wouldn't jump on an eagle, fly to Mt Doom and then fly back. Save a lot of bother.
"he develops a number of the themes he would explore in later novels, including fringe religions and cult leaders. His subsequent novel, Platform (2001), earned him a wider reputation. It is a romance told mostly in the first-person by a 40-year-old male arts administrator, with many sex scenes and an approving attitude towards prostitution and sex tourism. The novel's depiction of life and its explicit criticism of Islam"
must be something about the surname Thomas. You've got a doppelganger.
He's a LOT more famous than me (though you're not the first to point out a few parallels!).
His breakthrough novel, Atomised, is a masterpiece. Platform is very good but not great.
I was checking him out as he's just released his latest Soumission ( submission ) based on France having it's first muslim president. Needless to say a tad provocative to the PC mob.
Mr. F, why? [Not disagreeing, but I'm not as au fait with Tolkien lore as some].
Don't get me started, but I'll answer anyway:-
1. Denethor. Book Denethor is nuanced. He's a fine ruler, if proud and overconfident, and on poor terms with Faramir. He's utterly committed to defending his people against Sauron, a good commander, and his will only breaks at the last moment, when Faramir is apparently dying, and Sauron feeds him false information. Film Denethor is a mean, selfish, cowardly, treacherous, arsehole, who ought to have been killed years ago.
2. The Army of the Dead. In the Book, they play a limited but important role. In the film, they're the worst kind of deus ex machina, wiping out Sauron's army in a matter of seconds, and making the ride of the Rohirrim and Eowyn's killing the Witch King totally pointless.
3. Gimli. The least funny funny man in cinema.
4. The horrible cut and paste of Sam and Frodo's journey from Cirith Ungol to Mount Doom. For no apparent reason, they're shown in different costumes half-way through.
5. Cutting the Mouth of Sauron from the film.
6. Frodo turning against Sam for no good reason, just before they get attacked by Shelob.
7. Hollywood tactics. For no apparent reason, Aragorn's army outside the Black Gate breaks ranks and charges an army that outnumbers them 20 to 1.
And then we got 5 tedious fake endings rather than the harrowing of the shire, because you can't knock socialism so obviously in a Hollywood film.
On Ched Evans, if he has managed to get someone to employ him again, surely that is something the government wants ex offenders to be doing ie getting back into the workplace. If they wanted to punish him further they should have increased his sentence
Mr. F, why? [Not disagreeing, but I'm not as au fait with Tolkien lore as some].
Don't get me started, but I'll answer anyway:-
1. Denethor. Book Denethor is nuanced. He's a fine ruler, if proud and overconfident, and on poor terms with Faramir. He's utterly committed to defending his people against Sauron, a good commander, and his will only breaks at the last moment, when Faramir is apparently dying, and Sauron feeds him false information. Film Denethor is a mean, selfish, cowardly, treacherous, arsehole, who ought to have been killed years ago.
2. The Army of the Dead. In the Book, they play a limited but important role. In the film, they're the worst kind of deus ex machina, wiping out Sauron's army in a matter of seconds, and making the ride of the Rohirrim and Eowyn's killing the Witch King totally pointless.
3. Gimli. The least funny funny man in cinema.
4. The horrible cut and paste of Sam and Frodo's journey from Cirith Ungol to Mount Doom. For no apparent reason, they're shown in different costumes half-way through.
5. Cutting the Mouth of Sauron from the film.
6. Frodo turning against Sam for no good reason, just before they get attacked by Shelob.
7. Hollywood tactics. For no apparent reason, Aragorn's army outside the Black Gate breaks ranks and charges an army that outnumbers them 20 to 1.
You still can't explain why Frodo just wouldn't jump on an eagle, fly to Mt Doom and then fly back. Save a lot of bother.
Because the Ring would do its stuff on the eagle, who would eat the hobbits and declare itself Lord of creation.
Trust me, JRRT was better at plotting long, turgid, ring-themed, Middle-Earth-located bestsellers about hobbits than you are.
Fisher, Kellner and even Shadsy on Channel 4 news, with their current forecasts. On 4+1 shortly.
All go for NoM.
Thanks,just caught it.Labour minority methinks.
I am getting frustrated with all the pollsters ignoring NI and taking it for granted as though it's on another planet.NI can only speak with one voice if there are no empty seats at Westminster.S/F would be a welcome presence,should they accept this is the democratic will of those who elected them. Kellner just did it too.NI is part of the UK too.
Mr. F, why? [Not disagreeing, but I'm not as au fait with Tolkien lore as some].
Don't get me started, but I'll answer anyway:-
1. Denethor. Book Denethor is nuanced. He's a fine ruler, if proud and overconfident, and on poor terms with Faramir. He's utterly committed to defending his people against Sauron, a good commander, and his will only breaks at the last moment, when Faramir is apparently dying, and Sauron feeds him false information. Film Denethor is a mean, selfish, cowardly, treacherous, arsehole, who ought to have been killed years ago.
2. The Army of the Dead. In the Book, they play a limited but important role. In the film, they're the worst kind of deus ex machina, wiping out Sauron's army in a matter of seconds, and making the ride of the Rohirrim and Eowyn's killing the Witch King totally pointless.
3. Gimli. The least funny funny man in cinema.
4. The horrible cut and paste of Sam and Frodo's journey from Cirith Ungol to Mount Doom. For no apparent reason, they're shown in different costumes half-way through.
5. Cutting the Mouth of Sauron from the film.
6. Frodo turning against Sam for no good reason, just before they get attacked by Shelob.
7. Hollywood tactics. For no apparent reason, Aragorn's army outside the Black Gate breaks ranks and charges an army that outnumbers them 20 to 1.
You still can't explain why Frodo just wouldn't jump on an eagle, fly to Mt Doom and then fly back. Save a lot of bother.
Because the Ring would do its stuff on the eagle, who would eat the hobbits and declare itself Lord of creation.
Trust me, JRRT was better at plotting long, turgid, ring-themed, Middle-Earth-located bestsellers about hobbits than you are.
I have no doubt he was, but if you're in a hurry the abridged version works. ;-)
Fisher, Kellner and even Shadsy on Channel 4 news, with their current forecasts. On 4+1 shortly.
All go for NoM.
Thanks,just caught it.Labour minority methinks.
I am getting frustrated with all the pollsters ignoring NI and taking it for granted as though it's on another planet.NI can only speak with one voice if there are no empty seats at Westminster.S/F would be a welcome presence,should they accept this is the democratic will of those who elected them. Kellner just did it too.NI is part of the UK too.
I can't see it. Abstention from Westminster is pretty much their last republican fig leaf, besides their main target is the Irish General Election in 2016.
There was an Opinium that slipped under the radar during Xmas week, so for the final time for 2014 data:
Sunil Prasannan @Sunil_P2 · 4m4 minutes ago Final Electoral Leader-Board Of the Week (ELBOW) of 2014 inc. Opinium 23rd Dec. Lab 34.2, Con 31.6, UKIP 15.4, LD 7.5
Mr. F, why? [Not disagreeing, but I'm not as au fait with Tolkien lore as some].
Don't get me started, but I'll answer anyway:-
1. Denethor. Book Denethor is nuanced. He's a fine ruler, if proud and overconfident, and on poor terms with Faramir. He's utterly committed to defending his people against Sauron, a good commander, and his will only breaks at the last moment, when Faramir is apparently dying, and Sauron feeds him false information. Film Denethor is a mean, selfish, cowardly, treacherous, arsehole, who ought to have been killed years ago.
2. The Army of the Dead. In the Book, they play a limited but important role. In the film, they're the worst kind of deus ex machina, wiping out Sauron's army in a matter of seconds, and making the ride of the Rohirrim and Eowyn's killing the Witch King totally pointless.
3. Gimli. The least funny funny man in cinema.
4. The horrible cut and paste of Sam and Frodo's journey from Cirith Ungol to Mount Doom. For no apparent reason, they're shown in different costumes half-way through.
5. Cutting the Mouth of Sauron from the film.
6. Frodo turning against Sam for no good reason, just before they get attacked by Shelob.
7. Hollywood tactics. For no apparent reason, Aragorn's army outside the Black Gate breaks ranks and charges an army that outnumbers them 20 to 1.
Back in the day .... way back in the day, I loaned to a young relative my copy of the Hobbit and the Rings trilogy. The years past and over breakfast one morning I read a "Times" article about a signed first edition of the Hobbit selling for the price of one of Mike Smithson's bejewelled toupees !!
I enquired after my lost treasures and they were returned by post. To my shock the Hobbit had lost its jacket and was now multi coloured crayon encrusted. To my relief it was only a second edition and fortunately the trilogy remained a fully intact first edition set and which now resides with "Kinkell" as do numerous other first editions that seem to have acquired the ability to walk one way between family libraries ?!?
Mr. F, why? [Not disagreeing, but I'm not as au fait with Tolkien lore as some].
Don't get me started, but I'll answer anyway:-
1. Denethor. Book Denethor is nuanced. He's a fine ruler, if proud and overconfident, and on poor terms with Faramir. He's utterly committed to defending his people against Sauron, a good commander, and his will only breaks at the last moment, when Faramir is apparently dying, and Sauron feeds him false information. Film Denethor is a mean, selfish, cowardly, treacherous, arsehole, who ought to have been killed years ago.
2. The Army of the Dead. In the Book, they play a limited but important role. In the film, they're the worst kind of deus ex machina, wiping out Sauron's army in a matter of seconds, and making the ride of the Rohirrim and Eowyn's killing the Witch King totally pointless.
3. Gimli. The least funny funny man in cinema.
4. The horrible cut and paste of Sam and Frodo's journey from Cirith Ungol to Mount Doom. For no apparent reason, they're shown in different costumes half-way through.
5. Cutting the Mouth of Sauron from the film.
6. Frodo turning against Sam for no good reason, just before they get attacked by Shelob.
7. Hollywood tactics. For no apparent reason, Aragorn's army outside the Black Gate breaks ranks and charges an army that outnumbers them 20 to 1.
You still can't explain why Frodo just wouldn't jump on an eagle, fly to Mt Doom and then fly back. Save a lot of bother.
Personally, I think the story would have been improved by Eomer and Eowyn enjoying an incestuous affair, and then throwing Peregrine out of the window when he accidentally spies on them; Gandalf, Gimli, and Aragorn being slaughtered at a wedding feast by Galadriel; Faramir shooting his father with a crossbow as he's sitting on the toilet; Frodo carrying out a mass crucifixion of his enemies in the Shire; and Sam dumping a pot of molten gold over Gollum's head.
Revised Lab weekly lead - again for the last time for 2014 data!
Sunil Prasannan @Sunil_P2 · 7m7 minutes ago Labour weekly % poll leads since mid-August measured by Sunil's ELBOW and by simple averages for direct comparison
This guy is pretty awful, especially considering he maintains his innocence - but shouldn't there be a general principle that once people are punished for a crime, they are free to get on with their lives?
Nothing wrong with maintaining your innocence if you actually aren't guilty. Maybe he didn't do what he was convicted of. He's the only one who really knows. That's the dilemma of an innocent prisoner approaching a parole hearing - a false admission of guilt gets you out earlier.
Having served on a jury in the UK and two in Gib and seen how they arrived at their conclusions I certainly wouldn't ever wish my fate in the hands of 12 random nutters off the street.
With regards to the 12 nutters... It's the best we've come up with!
Yes, quite. Plead guilty to a lesser charge, and you get out sooner. Even when you are quite innocent of everything.
Jack W is right. Jury system, yes. Judicial system, horror....
Comments
As I (and others) have said often before, the hypocrisy of PB Tories is stunning.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/30662865
This guy is pretty awful, especially considering he maintains his innocence - but shouldn't there be a general principle that once people are punished for a crime, they are free to get on with their lives?
If MoJ is really that concerned about rapists on our streets maybe they should spend more time in Rotherham.
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/jan/02/johann-hari-interview-drugs-book-independent
Next average point centred on 5/1, period starts on 29/12.
Three people know the truth, two say he is innocent
Any ideas on the numbers?
Latin for "Poll Alert"
Remind me, when was the Autumn Statement?
*innocent face*
Fieldwork 30/12-02/01
Having served on a jury in the UK and two in Gib and seen how they arrived at their conclusions I certainly wouldn't ever wish my fate in the hands of 12 random nutters off the street.
Copyright - Rev Ian Paisley
See Wiki - Opinium fieldwork ended 23 Dec - 4 point Lab lead - 33/29 - nobody ever discussed that one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2015_United_Kingdom_general_election
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/11322309/The-battle-to-keep-our-Union-together-has-only-just-begun.html
But the post I responded to said he was pretty awful "especially considering he maintains his innocence "
Why especially because of that?
Nice guy you are
Unlike like all other pollsters Opinium does not, at the moment, issue a regional breakdown so it's not possible to work out the swing in England & Wales - where all the LAB-CON marginals are.
The point I was making was even though he hasn't admitted his guilt, there should be a line that is drawn where someone is allowed to get on with their life/career after serving their punishment.
As we all know from that famous historical documentary made by Prof Cleese - witches float (because they are made of wood) which means that if you throw them in a lake and they survive you should burn them!
Isn't he married/engaged (and was at the time)? If so having sex with a random woman makes you a pretty awful person.
The point I was making was even though he hasn't admitted his guilt, there should be a line that is drawn where someone is allowed to get on with their life/career after serving their punishment.
Doesn't make sense to me what you're saying but never mind
The point I was making was even though he hasn't admitted his guilt, there should be a line that is drawn where someone is allowed to get on with their life/career after serving their punishment.
Surely anyone has the right to maintain their innocence and, potentially, to appeal against conviction.
The point I was making was, even though he hasn't admitted his guilt, there should be a line that is drawn where someone is allowed to get on with their life/career after serving their punishment.
Why should someone who believes they are innocent admit their guilt . It would therefore make it pointless in appealing against their conviction .
I fall into the category of the majority of people who broadly trust the British jury system and am quite willing to change my mind should new evidence come to hand.
Perhaps you might wish to change to a rather vulgar Continental or EU system of justice. I prefer good old Blighty.
There seems to be a lot of people on their high horse about this case, applying rules to Ched Evans that they wouldn't if he wasn't a footballer. The woman heading the campaign is gushing over Mike Tyson while refusing to watch a club that might employ Evans.. wtf?
Self self self!
*titter me not
IF Evans maintains his innocence, no one is in a position to criticise him, because only he and the girl know for certain.
What price we find out that the CPS withheld evidence that was of use to the defence?
It wouldn't be the first time....
While I believe in the rehabilitation of offenders, and don't believe that people should be penalised for maintaining their innocence, it does rather stick in the throat that Mr Evans may be able to go back to the fame and fortune of professional football. Maybe he should start off burger flipping.
He denies it.
That makes him an awful person.
If he had any dignity and respect for the victim, he'd have admitted his guilt. That would have, in most reasonable peoples eyes, make him a very slightly less awful person.
It would also impact on whether he should be allowed to go abroad to pursue his career after serving his time.
Is what I'm saying really controversial?
It's kinda ironic that my original point was that EVEN IF SOMEONE MAINTAINS THEIR INNOCENCE after being convicted, I'm uncomfortable with the current system which places (possibly in this case) an unreasonable restriction on his liberty.
Perhaps I should have worded my earlier posts better.
No reason at all why footballers should be treated differently
The rest of what you said is fair enough, but I just don't get what is especially awful about that part..
Threesomes? matter of taste
Cheating on beloved? Pretty awful
Rape? Awful
Maintaining innocence of something you say you didnt do? Fair enough
The following paragraphs are not much better. Is nobody allowed to maintain their innocence when they believe themselves victims of a miscarriage of justice, or is it just some offences which are too serious for appeals?
I do not criticise Evans for his stance but hold that the law presently regards him as a guilty rapist and my position reflects this but may change if new evidence emerges. I don't think this an unreasonable position.
This guy is pretty awful, especially considering he maintains his innocence
I think everyone will agree that your now-preferred part of your comment is uncontroversial.
All go for NoM.
That is indeed a completely reasonable position. The italicised words are the very opposite of Pong's point and the whole reason for this minor thread diversion. Pong does criticise Evans for his stance.
Charlie Webster @CharlieCW · Sep 10
Just bumped into Mike Tyson in the hotel lobby as I was randomly talking about him! I chickened out on asking for a photo...damn ;-)
Gerry Hassan @GerryHassan 38m
#GE2015 Peter Kellner prediction now: Con 285 Lab 275 LibDem 30 SNP 30 UKIP 6. #c4news
Wouldn't be enough for either party to form a government
I'm much more uncomfortable with the mob deciding that the court-sanctioned judgement is insufficient and latching on to one individual regardless of the rights and wrong of the case & regardless of whether there are other more egregious cases.
So a blanket ban imposed by one country on working in the rest of the EU would be illegal but a ban on entering an individual country made by that country would be legal.
To me that actually seems a reasonable system. A country should have the right to exclude those they consider undesirable or a threat to their citizens.
1. Denethor. Book Denethor is nuanced. He's a fine ruler, if proud and overconfident, and on poor terms with Faramir. He's utterly committed to defending his people against Sauron, a good commander, and his will only breaks at the last moment, when Faramir is apparently dying, and Sauron feeds him false information. Film Denethor is a mean, selfish, cowardly, treacherous, arsehole, who ought to have been killed years ago.
2. The Army of the Dead. In the Book, they play a limited but important role. In the film, they're the worst kind of deus ex machina, wiping out Sauron's army in a matter of seconds, and making the ride of the Rohirrim and Eowyn's killing the Witch King totally pointless.
3. Gimli. The least funny funny man in cinema.
4. The horrible cut and paste of Sam and Frodo's journey from Cirith Ungol to Mount Doom. For no apparent reason, they're shown in different costumes half-way through.
5. Cutting the Mouth of Sauron from the film.
6. Frodo turning against Sam for no good reason, just before they get attacked by Shelob.
7. Hollywood tactics. For no apparent reason, Aragorn's army outside the Black Gate breaks ranks and charges an army that outnumbers them 20 to 1.
must be something about the surname Thomas. You've got a doppelganger.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Houellebecq
I take it you don't count Jar Jar Binks as a man for the purpose of 3?
Not sure I agree with 6. Gollum does manipulate the situation to make Sam look like a thief.
http://www.lefigaro.fr/livres/2015/01/03/03005-20150103ARTFIG00092-houellebecq-refute-toute-provocation-ou-satire-dans-soumission.php
LD 27
UKIP 8
On Ched Evans, if he has managed to get someone to employ him again, surely that is something the government wants ex offenders to be doing ie getting back into the workplace. If they wanted to punish him further they should have increased his sentence
Mr. Brooke, well, quite *cough*mockedinSirEdricsTemple*cough*.
Pretty realistic.
Trust me, JRRT was better at plotting long, turgid, ring-themed, Middle-Earth-located bestsellers about hobbits than you are.
I am getting frustrated with all the pollsters ignoring NI and taking it for granted as though it's on another planet.NI can only speak with one voice if there are no empty seats at Westminster.S/F would be a welcome presence,should they accept this is the democratic will of those who elected them.
Kellner just did it too.NI is part of the UK too.
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2014/10/will-sinn-fein-mps-take-their-seats-after-next-election
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2894963/Why-Britain-wrecked-1965-Fifty-years-ago-UK-socially-morally-culturally-different-country-ways-better-people-far-worse.html?login#readerCommentsCommand-message-field
Sunil Prasannan @Sunil_P2 · 4m4 minutes ago
Final Electoral Leader-Board Of the Week (ELBOW) of 2014 inc. Opinium 23rd Dec. Lab 34.2, Con 31.6, UKIP 15.4, LD 7.5
https://twitter.com/Sunil_P2/status/551476213941043201
I enquired after my lost treasures and they were returned by post. To my shock the Hobbit had lost its jacket and was now multi coloured crayon encrusted. To my relief it was only a second edition and fortunately the trilogy remained a fully intact first edition set and which now resides with "Kinkell" as do numerous other first editions that seem to have acquired the ability to walk one way between family libraries ?!?
Sunil Prasannan @Sunil_P2 · 7m7 minutes ago
Labour weekly % poll leads since mid-August measured by Sunil's ELBOW and by simple averages for direct comparison
https://twitter.com/Sunil_P2/status/551476797779742721
Jack W is right. Jury system, yes. Judicial system, horror....