Football

[Cletus]

Burgess Hill 0-5 Dover Athletic in the FA Cup. Comfortable win in the rain.

 

[familyguy99]

Bolton 2-0 Oldham

Never expect Oldham to win at Macron Stadium today and we have to thanks our goalkeeper to keep score only at two nil.

I see FA Cup first round draw will take place on Monday evening and with team like Southport, Stockport, Altrincham and Curzon Ashton/York in draw I wouldn't mind Oldham getting any of them in First round.

 

[backontrack]

Oh, dear. We only got a draw against Braintree. McNamara's going to stay...

 

[Darandio]

Oh, dear. We only got a draw against Braintree. McNamara's going to stay...

:-?

Braintree was last week, and it was announced during the week that he is leaving.

 

[Drogba11CFC]

First of all, congratulations to Westfields for reaching the FA Cup 1st round proper.

Winchester City 3...Didcot Town 1 (Neighbour 42, Jenkinson 45, Feeney 87; Mulvany 7)

In a poor game, Winchester notched up another win after going behind. The visitors took the lead after 7 minutes, but late in the first half Howard Neighbour scrambled the ball in before Andy Jenkinson was first to a rebound. The second half was unremarkable with City hitting the post but with three minutes left Craig Feeney tucked home to secure the three points.

Other Results:

FA Cup:

Eastleigh 6 (SIX) North Leigh 0

Taunton Town 0...Hemel Hempstead Town 0

SLSW:

Barnstaple Town 1...Wantage Town 1

Larkhall Athletic 3...Mangotsfield United 0

Paulton Rovers 2...Bishops Cleeve 0

Shortwood United 1...Bridgwater Town 1

Slimbridge 2...Salisbury 1

Swindon Supermarine 1...Evesham United 3

Tiverton Town 3...AFC Totton 2

Wimborne Town 2...Hereford 3

Yate Town 1...Bideford 2

Table:
1. Hereford 11/31
-----------------------------------
2. Mangotsfield United 12/27
3. Tiverton Town 11/25
4. Evesham United 11/21
5. Swindon Supermarine 10/20
-----------------------------------
6. Shortwood United 11/20
...
9. Larkhall Athletic 11/17
10. Salisbury 10/16
11. Bideford 11/16
12. Slimbridge 12/14
13. Winchester City 10/13
14. Bishops Cleeve 12/12
...
17. Yate Town 12/11
18. Didcot Town 12/10
19. Paulton Rovers 11/9
20. Wantage Town 12/5
-----------------------------------
21. AFC Totton 11/5
22. Bridgwater Town 11/4

 

[SS4]

Another game, another point

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Apparently there were plastic pigs on the pitch at The Valley earlier, as Charlton and Coventry supporters staged a joint protest at their respective clubs' ownership. Could this be the most viable proposal for re-use of the 442s?

 

[Darandio]

So, York finally appoint a new manager, ex-Wrexham boss Gary Mills. You would think that this would be end of McNamara and he would now leave the club altogether, you'd be wrong, he's now Chief Executive. hock:

What the hell is going on at that club? He did seem unsackable, what has been going on upstairs?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/37671680

National League side York City have re-appointed Gary Mills as manager, with outgoing boss Jackie McNamara becoming chief executive.

Mills, 54, previously managed York from October 2010 to March 2013, leading them to promotion to League Two, and was sacked by Wrexham on Thursday.

McNamara, 42, offered to resign as boss if York did not get a "positive result" at Braintree earlier this month.

Mills rejoins York with the club 19th in the National League.

His first game in charge will be Monday's FA Cup fourth qualifying round replay at Curzon Ashton.

A statement on the club website said that following an interview process Mills was "the person most qualified to take the team forward".

It added: "Gary brings with him a depth of knowledge and experience at this level, together with a track record of getting the most out of players and is well known for his exciting, attacking and, when necessary, pragmatic brand of football to achieve positive results."

McNamara took over as York boss in November last year but was unable to prevent them being relegated from League Two last season and won just three of 15 league games this term.

Mills was sacked by Wrexham on Thursday after 18 months in charge at the Racecourse Ground.

 

[507021]

I'm pleased with our 1-0 win over Huddersfield today, in all honesty I thought it was going to be a draw.

 

[Clip]

Great result for us yesterday moving us to 2nd in the league


Shelvey and his passing was on top form yesterday he had a great game

 

[96tommy]

I couldn't have been any more happier (for 30 mins that is....)!

The news broke that Gary Mills had returned to the club as manager and assistant Simon Donnelly had left. Mills is a legend at the club, under him we won at Wembley twice in a week and although it didn't work out for him when we got promoted to league football, he will forever be highly thought of by the fans. At this point, it looked like Sackie McNamara was a goner.

You guessed it, 30 minutes later he gets appointed Chief Executive ?!?!?! and once again the club are seen as a joke. He is statistically our worst manager in the history of the club but Jason McGill sees something in him that 99.9% of others don't. It makes the rumours that Jackie Mc has invested into the club look more valid minute after minute

 

[DarloRich]

A really good win for Darlo over the weekend beating Gainsborough Trinity 5-2 after coming from 1-0 down. Second in the league behind money bags Fylde.

A long way to go but a really good start to the season - FA cup apart!

I couldn't have been any more happier (for 30 mins that is....)!

The news broke that Gary Mills had returned to the club as manager and assistant Simon Donnelly had left. Mills is a legend at the club, under him we won at Wembley twice in a week and although it didn't work out for him when we got promoted to league football, he will forever be highly thought of by the fans. At this point, it looked like Sackie McNamara was a goner.

You guessed it, 30 minutes later he gets appointed Chief Executive ?!?!?! and once again the club are seen as a joke. He is statistically our worst manager in the history of the club but Jason McGill sees something in him that 99.9% of others don't. It makes the rumours that Jackie Mc has invested into the club look more valid minute after minute

Or that they cant afford to sack him! Getting Mills back should be a good move. He worked wonders last time around but the job is even bigger this time. Can the club afford to move on the obvious dead wood?

We might be playing you next season at this rate

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Evo Stik First Division North

Scarborough Athletic 3....Hyde United 2

Just about a fair result, allowing for the fact that the Hyde defence were to blame for two of the three goals, which ended their recent unbeaten run in the league.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

I'm pleased with our 1-0 win over Huddersfield today, in all honesty I thought it was going to be a draw.

I'm not! If I'd been offered 3rd place in mid-October on the day the fixtures came out I'd have snapped your hand off though. It's concerning (a) how accustomed Town fans have become to winning, meaning when we don't we lose all perspective... and (b) how easily Sheffield Wednesday worked out how to nullify us.

Then again, a slightly below-par performance was probably due, and it does show how far we've come in a short time. Though there should be a law against kicking off so early in the day, especially on a Sunday!

 

[Tetchytyke]

just read some of the legal details of the case - very different from the impression I got from superficially reading or hearing news reports about it.

Indeed it was.

Mr Evans sneaked into the hotel room where she was having sex with his friend, had sex with her too, then sneaked out of the fire escape along with his friend. The woman woke up the next morning naked, without any money (she'd lost her handbag the night before) and having wet the bed. She didn't know what had happened, which is why she went to police. Her story has always been that she remembered nothing except waking up in a strange hotel room with no clothes and no money, in a soiled bed.

It was Mr Evans and Mr McDonald who admitted having sex with her, once they'd traced who'd booked the hotel room in the first place.

The fact that Mr Evans, even now, even having been acquitted, still doesn't think he did anything wrong is what troubles me most about him. Even if it wasn't rape his behaviour was despicable.

He also wasn't "vindicated", he was found not guilty, that is very different to being found innocent.

I'm also deeply troubled that his appeal and subsequent acquittal were secured on the basis of the woman's sexual history.

I don't understand his missus standing by him, and his missus' dad spending hundreds of thousands of pounds on clearing his name, including handing out £50,000 "rewards" to previous sexual partners of the woman. Imagine spending all that money bailing out a man who cared so little that he'd do that to someone. If someone treated my daughter like that I'd break every bone in their body.

 

[DarloRich]

Indeed it was.

Mr Evans sneaked into the hotel room where she was having sex with his friend, had sex with her too, then sneaked out of the fire escape along with his friend. The woman woke up the next morning naked, without any money (she'd lost her handbag the night before) and having wet the bed. She didn't know what had happened, which is why she went to police. Her story has always been that she remembered nothing except waking up in a strange hotel room with no clothes and no money, in a soiled bed.

It was Mr Evans and Mr McDonald who admitted having sex with her, once they'd traced who'd booked the hotel room in the first place.

The fact that Mr Evans, even now, even having been acquitted, still doesn't think he did anything wrong is what troubles me most about him. Even if it wasn't rape his behaviour was despicable.

He also wasn't "vindicated", he was found not guilty, that is very different to being found innocent.

I'm also deeply troubled that his appeal and subsequent acquittal were secured on the basis of the woman's sexual history.

I don't understand his missus standing by him, and his missus' dad spending hundreds of thousands of pounds on clearing his name, including handing out £50,000 "rewards" to previous sexual partners of the woman. Imagine spending all that money bailing out a man who cared so little that he'd do that to someone. If someone treated my daughter like that I'd break every bone in their body.

The general rule is that past sexual conduct is not admissible during such trials. However, may I direct the courts attention to this blog which goes some way to explaining why that principle was not upheld here:

http://ukcriminallawblog.com/ched-evans-not-guilty-of-rape/

That Evans behaved badly is without question. However bad behaviour is insufficient grounds for a criminal conviction. This case has been troubling from the start but the court have decided he is an innocent man. We have to respect that. We can not pick and choose which decisions we like based on our own morals.

EDIT - i think it is also important to note that this case does not seem to set any precedent and that the relevant statues regarding admisability of past conduct were correctly applied - despite what the media might be saying.

 

[Tetchytyke]

The general rule is that past sexual conduct is not admissible during such trials. However, may I direct the courts attention to this blog which goes some way to explaining why that principle was not upheld here

What troubles me is more than just the fact that the evidence was ruled admissible (I understand why, I don't agree with the decision), it's also who the evidence came from. Both men were known to Mr Evans, were offered money by his fiance as a "reward", only came forward long after the first trial (and obviously knew what Mr Evans claimed she'd said and done) and the existence of payment of this reward was blocked from the jury.

I am still unsure why this case was expedited to the review commission and the appeal court, given that a man accused of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice in 2006 only saw his appeal go through last week- and that was after the CPS had deliberately withheld evidence. I am guessing that Mr Evans has a very wealthy father in law and this, as always, is what "influences" these things.

I think the whole thing is very fishy, tbh.

That Evans behaved badly is without question. However bad behaviour is insufficient grounds for a criminal conviction. This case has been troubling from the start but the court have decided he is an innocent man.

The fact he thinks he did nothing wrong, and has walked away with his career intact despite encouraging his "supporters" to repeatedly name the woman in question and despite setting up a website to trash her name, is what sticks in my craw.

They also haven't decided he was innocent. I know that's just arguing semantics, but they decided he was not guilty. It is different.

EDIT - i think it is also important to note that this case does not seem to set any precedent and that the relevant statues regarding admisability of past conduct were correctly applied - despite what the media might be saying.

The Appeal Court decision does set precedent, given the stature of that court. The law provides for this evidence to be put where relevant. I do not see how it was relevant.

I see the judge in the second trial again repeated the fallacy that "drunken consent is still consent". Between crap like this and Brexit, it's like the last forty years never happened.

 

[Groningen]

Jose Mourinho hopes that Juergen Klopp behaves in the game tonight. Hmm; Mourinho is even a bigger idiot than Klopp!

 

[DarloRich]

What troubles me is more than just the fact that the evidence was ruled admissible (I understand why, I don't agree with the decision), it's also who the evidence came from. Both men were known to Mr Evans, were offered money by his fiance as a "reward", only came forward long after the first trial (and obviously knew what Mr Evans claimed she'd said and done) and the existence of payment of this reward was blocked from the jury.

but the argument was that the behaviour of the complainant was so similar to previous consensual behaviour that that the similarity cannot reasonably be described as a coincidence - that is entirely within the definition of the existing legislation as contained within section 41 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999.

The prosecution told the jury that the new witnesses had been paid. The jury heard the evidence, heard the questions and the witnesses’ answers, and made up their own minds.

I am still unsure why this case was expedited to the review commission and the appeal court, given that a man accused of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice in 2006 only saw his appeal go through last week- and that was after the CPS had deliberately withheld evidence. I am guessing that Mr Evans has a very wealthy father in law and this, as always, is what "influences" these things.

I think the whole thing is very fishy, tbh.

such has been the performance of our justice system for a long time. I agree it is wrong. I also wonder if preserving the anonymity of the complainant was an important factor.

The fact he thinks he did nothing wrong, and has walked away with his career intact despite encouraging his "supporters" to repeatedly name the woman in question and despite setting up a website to trash her name, is what sticks in my craw.

Indeed the claimant has the right to anonymity and that MUST be protected.

I wont judge anothers moral code. How do we know that the relationship was one of exclusivity?

They also haven't decided he was innocent. I know that's just arguing semantics, but they decided he was not guilty. It is different.

it is an important point. The jury are asked "are you sure that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt"? “Not guilty” means just that. The jury were not sure that he was guilty.

The Appeal Court decision does set precedent, given the stature of that court. The law provides for this evidence to be put where relevant. I do not see how it was relevant.

I see the judge in the second trial again repeated the fallacy that "drunken consent is still consent". Between crap like this and Brexit, it's like the last forty years never happened.

We must agree to disagree on that point. I think S.41 continues to operate exactly as it did before, excluding the almost all questions about previous sexual behaviour. ( and rightly so!)

 

[Tetchytyke]

I wont judge anothers moral code. How do we know that the relationship was one of exclusivity?

I won't judge anyone for having consensual sex.

I will judge them for having consensual sex and then sneaking out the fire door, leaving their partner passed out in the bed with no clothes, no money and no idea where they are.

Having read all the judgements, I know what I think about Mr Evans. One jury agreed with me. One did not.

The jury are asked "are you sure that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt"? “Not guilty” means just that. The jury were not sure that he was guilty.

Indeed, but that's not the same thing as innocent

We must agree to disagree on that point. I think S.41 continues to operate exactly as it did before, excluding the almost all questions about previous sexual behaviour. ( and rightly so!)

Court of Appeal decisions set precedent, which can only be overturned by the Supreme Court.

The question is how far this precedent extends. I am deeply troubled that the Court of Appeal allowed "new evidence" that was little more than hearsay about a woman's sexual preferences, reported a long time after the event, by people known to the defendant, paid by the defendant and who knew what the defendant had claimed she had said and done.

It is a troubling precedent that if you can find enough people to say a woman has had sex with them it is sufficient to see a rape conviction overturned.

There are, after all, only fairly limited positions in which you can have sex, and being asked to do it "harder" isn't exactly an uncommon request is it.

 

[Y961 XBU]

Anyone looking forward to the FA CUP draw tonight? As a Bolton wanderers Fan I hope we get Altrincham as my mate supports them so I want to give them a good thrashing!

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Anyone looking forward to the FA CUP draw tonight? As a Bolton wanderers Fan I hope we get Altrincham as my mate supports them so I want to give them a good thrashing!

I'm just glad we're not involved in the cup for another 2 rounds! Also hoping that Taunton Town can overcome Hemel Hempstead Town in their replay...

Discussion of Ched Evans at this point has very little to do with football, to the extent that it seems rather off-topic.

 

[DarloRich]

I won't judge anyone for having consensual sex.

I will judge them for having consensual sex and then sneaking out the fire door, leaving their partner passed out in the bed with no clothes, no money and no idea where they are.

Having read all the judgements, I know what I think about Mr Evans. One jury agreed with me. One did not.

It does not matter what we think though does it? The jury returned a not guilty verdict.

Indeed, but that's not the same thing as innocent

Agreed and that is an important point although our criminal justice system does not set out to prove innocence - It seeks to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt

Court of Appeal decisions set precedent, which can only be overturned by the Supreme Court.

The question is how far this precedent extends. I am deeply troubled that the Court of Appeal allowed "new evidence" that was little more than hearsay about a woman's sexual preferences, reported a long time after the event, by people known to the defendant, paid by the defendant and who knew what the defendant had claimed she had said and done.

It is a troubling precedent that if you can find enough people to say a woman has had sex with them it is sufficient to see a rape conviction overturned.

There are, after all, only fairly limited positions in which you can have sex, and being asked to do it "harder" isn't exactly an uncommon request is it.

But the statute that was applied already exists. This case turned on the correct application of that statue. There is nothing about this case that has not been tested before and i do not think it extends any existing principle. .

The evidence was tested by the court. They felt they could not convict. I would suggest the exact wordings used in Court are considered. They clearly felt that there was consent based on the similarity to previous consensual meetings. I understand why the decision was reached. I will not comment on whether i think it is the right one.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Also hoping that Taunton Town can overcome Hemel Hempstead Town in their replay...

Nah, I hope Hemel get through and we get to play them. Fancy a trip back to the concrete hellhole I used to call home.

Discussion of Ched Evans at this point has very little to do with football, to the extent that it seems rather off-topic.

Interesting how Mr Evans is refusing to sign another contract with Chesterfield now he's Mr Big Shot, even though they took a chance on the slimeball when nobody else would. Although in fairness he's graciously agreed to see out his one-year deal because of his "loyalty to the club"
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The evidence was tested by the court. They felt they could not convict. I would suggest the exact wordings used in Court are considered. They clearly felt that there was consent based on the similarity to previous consensual meetings. I understand why the decision was reached. I will not comment on whether i think it is the right one.

I fully understand why, with the new evidence, it became harder for the jury to convict. Mr Evans, by dragging her sexual history into it, ensured that he flung just enough muck at her to ensure some of it stuck. There was just enough plausibility in his version of events to ensure an acquittal.

The joys of getting to write your defence five years after the offence, eh.

I understand the Court of Appeal's rationale. I don't agree with it. I think it is a throwback to the dark days where a husband couldn't rape his wife and the sexual history of a woman was sufficient to argue that because she sometimes consents to sex it means she'll consent to anyone who asks for it.

 

[AlterEgo]

Discussion of Ched Evans at this point has very little to do with football, to the extent that it seems rather off-topic.

Why not? It's one of the footballing stories of the year.

 

[Cletus]

Away to Cambridge United in the FA Cup 1st round, could involve drinking alcohol

 

[Saint66]

The mighty St Albans City drawn at home to Carlisle United in the FA Cup first round.

 

[backontrack]

I couldn't have been any more happier (for 30 mins that is....)!

The news broke that Gary Mills had returned to the club as manager and assistant Simon Donnelly had left. Mills is a legend at the club, under him we won at Wembley twice in a week and although it didn't work out for him when we got promoted to league football, he will forever be highly thought of by the fans. At this point, it looked like Sackie McNamara was a goner.

You guessed it, 30 minutes later he gets appointed Chief Executive ?!?!?! and once again the club are seen as a joke. He is statistically our worst manager in the history of the club but Jason McGill sees something in him that 99.9% of others don't. It makes the rumours that Jackie Mc has invested into the club look more valid minute after minute

Brilliant...until that latter appointment.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

So, York finally appoint a new manager, ex-Wrexham boss Gary Mills. You would think that this would be end of McNamara and he would now leave the club altogether, you'd be wrong, he's now Chief Executive. hock:

What the hell is going on at that club? He did seem unsackable, what has been going on upstairs?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/37671680

An interesting FA Cup 1st round match looks to be somewhat imponderable.....

Westfields FC v York City or Curzon Ashton

 

[J-2739]

Liverpool-Man Utd on Sky Sports 1, anyone?