That's why I think it's a bit naive to state "he's a rapist because the jury says so", because things change - if this case review decides there's scope for a retrial and he's then acquitted, what then "he's innocent because the jury says so"? Then where are we, an innocent man has been denied his liberty and subsequently his right to work.

I'm happy to say, as it stands, he's a convicted rapist, and treat him accordingly, but I'm afraid I can't be as certain of his guilt as some on here. It's like saying those scumbags who murdered Stephen Lawrence are all innocent (aside from the two currently inside) because a jury said so. I assume most people agree there's a good chance that they are guilty, even if it's not been proven sufficiently.

Not sure I'm making my point very well. I think I'm saying I agree that he should be treated as guilty or innocent based on his current legal status through the court system so as it stands today Evans is a rapist, but not necessarily that I will agree that that conviction/acquittal was correct (which makes you look a bit of a muppet when/if convictions are overturned)

If the conviction is overturned it will be done on the basis of evidence and the rule of law and not on what the majority of the public want or don't want, which is completely irrelevant

Which basically suggests that the jury were undecided on Donaldson, not Evans. And that hits a key point of law.

Donaldson could reasonably be said to have believed he had consent by the actions prior to sex (i.e meeting a girl, having a few drinks and going back to the hotel). Evans doesn't have that capacity.

Its an important distinction, because it establishes the importance of the timeline of events.

The case hinges on whether it would be reasonable for Evan to believe he had consent (once it was established that the victim was intoxicated). His actions prior to obtaining consent are key to his conviction - There is no reasonable case to accept that he could have believed he had informed consent by actions of the victim or his own.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Doesn't matter if I think he is guilty or not the court found him guilty after weighing up all available evidence so unless he wins the review he is a convicted rapist, so any debate on his guilt or otherwise is immaterial to the debate of whether he should play professionally again.

His conviction is not relevant to the type of employment he is seeking,. To deny him that employment is to punish him twice for the same offence.
He hasn't shown remorse but he would have served additional time for this, so again he would be punished for same offence twice.
I would not like to see him at Palace but the law is the law and it is not for me to pick or choose who it should apply to, he has served his time and should be allowed to return to his employment as any other convicted rapist would be.
So the real questions is are footballers role models and if the are what level of transgression will deny them entry into the profession.

One supporter of hacking argued that without it "you will do away with the courage and pluck of the game, and I will be bound to bring over a lot of Frenchmen who would beat you with a week's practice -Blackheath secretary at first meeting of the F.A

The BBC have gone with "Oldham drop bid to sign rapist Evans", like "rapist" is his new first name.

I reckon it won't be long before he gives up trying to get into a team. Unless Millwall are interested?

Depends what the threats were. If the threats were "we'll withdraw thousands of pounds of sponsorship" then fair enough. If they were of a violent nature....not so much.