Pickle Rick Posted October 15, 2016 Report Share Posted October 15, 2016 13 hours ago, Dollymarie said: Read this this morning that I completely agree with. http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/ched-evans-footballer-rape-trial-acquitted-justice-woman-misogyny-consent-prison-walk-free-a7362276.html People do silly things when drunk. Ched should not have been put in prison. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marina's Rolls Royce Posted October 15, 2016 Report Share Posted October 15, 2016 I can't help but being genuinely interested in a free razor worth £10 plus two blades. But I also can't help but being genuinely repulsed by the Sun in general. It's sort of like like the gas being hammered but the victors are swindon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 15, 2016 Report Share Posted October 15, 2016 UK law is a strange beast - there is no black and white. To a certain extent, its flexibility has allowed the UK to develop as a nation. Examples: Magna Carter; Reform Act (allowing Joe Bloggs to vote version 1) - it took over 100s of years for this to be thrashed out and it's still changing now; etc. It takes years for law to get to some semblance of sense. Dare I say that this is the beginning of clarification about when consent is consent. In the mean time, there will be casualties. Ched has been lucky. In future, men and women (equality is happening) will be jailed for non-consensual sex (in relation to alcohol) and they will not be so lucky. Personally, I think this whole case leaves a bitter taste in the mouth. The link provided by Eddie sums this case up quite well. The girl on the receiving end of a sexual encounter has never claimed she was raped, that was done by the law (as it stands). What are my thoughts of Ched? Horrible man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esmond Million's Bung Posted October 16, 2016 Report Share Posted October 16, 2016 15 hours ago, Captain Hindsight said: People do silly things when drunk. Ched should not have been put in prison. Then blame his original legal team who on the face of it were incredibly complacent believing that he would get off easily and to quote football parlance 'took their eye off of the ball'. I read somewhere that he was going to sue 500k for loss of earnings, I will be very interested to see exactly who he sues, because from where I am sitting his former legal team are the only candidates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 16, 2016 Report Share Posted October 16, 2016 1 hour ago, Esmond Million's Bung said: Then blame his original legal team who on the face of it were incredibly complacent believing that he would get off easily and to quote football parlance 'took their eye off of the ball'. I read somewhere that he was going to sue 500k for loss of earnings, I will be very interested to see exactly who he sues, because from where I am sitting his former legal team are the only candidates. From what I can gather the only people he could sue is his original legal team. The crown/CPS can be sued as it was only knew evidence that cleared him and not any wrong doing by the prosecution team Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esmond Million's Bung Posted October 16, 2016 Report Share Posted October 16, 2016 3 minutes ago, Tomarse said: From what I can gather the only people he could sue is his original legal team. The crown/CPS can be sued as it was only knew evidence that cleared him and not any wrong doing by the prosecution team Exactly my point any vitriol should be aimed at his previous legal team and not anybody else at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Northern Red Posted October 16, 2016 Report Share Posted October 16, 2016 He is suing his original legal team, apparently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I am the mole Posted October 16, 2016 Report Share Posted October 16, 2016 Well we're at 1-1 now surely we need another trial to settle it either way! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sephjnr Posted October 16, 2016 Report Share Posted October 16, 2016 On 10/14/2016 at 21:54, Bat Fastard said: The whole thing is a nasty and shabby episode. Evans had lost so much momentum in his career - and two and a half years in prison - for behaving like a complete idiot. I suppose it has demonstrated justice - and it has cost him very dear. It is a good episode to demonstrate to other young footballers that stupid behaviour can cost £millions. It would have been cheaper and safer to stay home with a cocoa. Tell a young boy to concentrate on his football more than his general education then give him a seven-figure per-annum contract and the adoration of thousands per week, what motivation does he have to destroy that level of deity? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bat Fastard Posted October 16, 2016 Report Share Posted October 16, 2016 2 hours ago, sephjnr said: Tell a young boy to concentrate on his football more than his general education then give him a seven-figure per-annum contract and the adoration of thousands per week, what motivation does he have to destroy that level of deity? I can see how it could go to a boys head, but I get the impression that our young chaps are better grounded - I really hope so. It would be sensible if they lived on pocket money and invested the rest for when their careers were over. When you see the expensive cars (and car insurance policies) - and think of Jurgan Klinsmann, who earned a huge income but drove an old VW Beetle - smart man!! I wonder how many potentially great careers have been ruined by too much drinking and high living. They obviously don't all have the wit to imagine what it will be like after they have received their very last big payday! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esmond Million's Bung Posted October 16, 2016 Report Share Posted October 16, 2016 53 minutes ago, Bat Fastard said: I can see how it could go to a boys head, but I get the impression that our young chaps are better grounded - I really hope so. It would be sensible if they lived on pocket money and invested the rest for when their careers were over. When you see the expensive cars (and car insurance policies) - and think of Jurgan Klinsmann, who earned a huge income but drove an old VW Beetle - smart man!! I wonder how many potentially great careers have been ruined by too much drinking and high living. They obviously don't all have the wit to imagine what it will be like after they have received their very last big payday! You can see in his original statements to the police about money, women throwing themselves at footballers and being able to pretty much have anyone they want because of the money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admin Maesknoll Red Posted October 16, 2016 Admin Report Share Posted October 16, 2016 There was a Barrister ( and self proclaimed feminist) on R5 live earlier, explaining pretty much all what was in the barristers blog posted on here. She confirms that all the comments about setting back rape reporting 30 years is nonsense, as are the claims about past sexual history being used, setting a precedent, as there has always been scope for them to be used. She gave the example of a women saying "I must have been raped, because I am gay and do not have sex with men". Whereas if there was a man or men who conformed they had sex with her, it would prove her lying under oath. I guess the feminist movement must be pretty formidable, as she wouldn't give her name in case of reprisals, when all she was doing was clarifying points of law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Port Said Red Posted October 17, 2016 Report Share Posted October 17, 2016 On 10/14/2016 at 23:03, RedDave said: On 10/14/2016 at 23:06, Rob k said: Would you seek compo if you had wrongly been thrown in prison? I would The sun calling people 'slimeballs' is also a little ironic On 10/14/2016 at 23:17, ralphindevon said: He's a slimeball. Now, where are them naked pictures of Ola? What a ******* rag On 10/15/2016 at 12:21, Super said: Mmm Ola..... On 10/15/2016 at 16:22, BS4 on Tour... said: Only The Sun would print headlines like that next to a pic of an almost naked woman proclaiming 'See All Of Ola'... Guys, guys, guys, is no one interested in the free razor or the Trolls album and stickers for the "kiddies"?? That front page sums up that rag. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarcusX Posted October 17, 2016 Report Share Posted October 17, 2016 On 15/10/2016 at 08:11, Dollymarie said: Read this this morning that I completely agree with. http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/ched-evans-footballer-rape-trial-acquitted-justice-woman-misogyny-consent-prison-walk-free-a7362276.html That article is rubbish, read the one above your post which is far more balanced. 1. They werent ex-boyfriends, they were just guys who had had sex with her (2 in 2 nights, the 2 nights before the night in question). The reason it was relevant is not that she had sex with them, but the way she acted and the things she said during those moments were almost identical to the way she acted with Ched according to his account of the night. Now, whether they lied, whether they were bribed etc thats all speculation but if we believe in the legal system then they have given these details under oath. 2. the point about "bribes" is irrelevant, so many cases go on where rewards are offered for information leading to arrest/conviction etc. 3. What some morons tweet about the conviction has absolutely no relevance on the case or the verdict. Idiots will be idiots, trolls will troll. It says more about them as people than it does this case. 4. This is not a precedent for future cases, its an exception due to being specifically relevant to details of the case. 5. No-one worked out that this girl wasn't raped by " speaking to her ex-boyfriends " as quoted in this article. What they did decide was that based on the way the girl acted with Ched, which were very similar to the way she acted with 2 different guys on 2 immediately preceding nights, was enough to suggest that Ched believed she was consenting. Or more accurately they cant say for certain that he didnt think he had consent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarcusX Posted October 17, 2016 Report Share Posted October 17, 2016 On 15/10/2016 at 15:47, northsomersetred said: Me too, an absolute slag who slept with anyone and often had no recollection of the sexual encounter. She only had one thing on her mind when she realised who he was £££££££££££ Unfortunately these kind of responses are the exact sort of nonsense that have helped damage Ched's reputation (along with the actual conviction). He has too many "supporters" who think that him being "innocent" (not guilty, actually, theres a difference) is some kind of victory for the lads. Whilst I believe there were some tweets, that got deleted, suggesting a "big pay day" etc there's no actual evidence this girl lied as such. She never reported the rape in the first place, and all the evidence from the trial simply suggests that she doesnt remember what happened. The police pushed for this conviction as soon as they heard the footballer's names involved, remember the initial investigation was about a lost or stolen bag. Presumably the girl could have halted proceedings at any point, who knows? We dont, so I think its grossly unfair for people to be victimising the girl without knowing for certain. At the end of the day even if he was still found guilty after this latest trial she's still the one who has had to flee the country and begin a new life under a new identity - whilst being a convicted rapist Ched still had his family, his money, his friends and eventually his career. On 15/10/2016 at 11:35, Esmond Million's Bung said: Without doubt the most intelligent commentary so far on this sorry spectacle. http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/ched-evans-footballer-rape-trial-acquitted-justice-woman-misogyny-consent-prison-walk-free-a7362276.html Disagree completely, as per my post above. In no way is posting completely irrelevant tweets from knuckle-draggers "intelligent commentary". The secret barrister one is far more balanced and factual. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sepp Blatter Posted October 17, 2016 Report Share Posted October 17, 2016 I'd have more respect if people just said "do you know what, I was wrong and I'm sorry". He isn't an angel, but the poor guy was put in prison for 2 years of his life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Posted October 17, 2016 Report Share Posted October 17, 2016 Yes he has a right to carry on with his career, would I want him here? Would i ****. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esmond Million's Bung Posted October 17, 2016 Report Share Posted October 17, 2016 1 minute ago, Sepp Blatter said: I'd have more respect if people just said "do you know what, I was wrong and I'm sorry". He isn't an angel, but the poor guy was put in prison for 2 years of his life. Once more, he was in prison because a jury of his peers found him guilty and why?, because his original legal team ****** up, why should anybody say 'I was wrong and i'm sorry' under those circumstances?. and that is why people are saying that he is going to sue his original legal team, the only people suable in this case and the reason that this non angel spent 2 years of his life in prison. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TBW Posted October 21, 2016 Report Share Posted October 21, 2016 On 16/10/2016 at 16:06, I am the mole said: Well we're at 1-1 now surely we need another trial to settle it either way! Add it on to the Brexit re-vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Major Isewater Posted October 21, 2016 Report Share Posted October 21, 2016 On 14/10/2016 at 16:23, SARJ said: No questioning the bloke is a classless cheating slimeball (and why his Mrs is standing by him I have no idea) but fair play for persevering to clear his name. 11 jurors cleared the man of rape. Whilst the girl had a few bevvies inside her, she clearly wasn't 'out of it' as first claimed, so can everyone stop with the 'barely conscious' comments. She consented. End of. standing by him ? Can I refer you to the previous post indicating 40k a week for ' playing ' for the Blades ? Perhaps a reason ? No ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarcusX Posted October 21, 2016 Report Share Posted October 21, 2016 7 minutes ago, Major Isewater said: standing by him ? Can I refer you to the previous post indicating 40k a week for ' playing ' for the Blades ? Perhaps a reason ? No ? Her father is worth far more than Ched. Try another reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coxy27 Posted October 21, 2016 Report Share Posted October 21, 2016 On 14/10/2016 at 15:23, SARJ said: No questioning the bloke is a classless cheating slimeball (and why his Mrs is standing by him I have no idea) but fair play for persevering to clear his name. 11 jurors cleared the man of rape. Whilst the girl had a few bevvies inside her, she clearly wasn't 'out of it' as first claimed, so can everyone stop with the 'barely conscious' comments. She consented. End of. You're wrong. You're doing what the majority of people up and down the country are doing, and putting the emphasis on whether the girl involved consented and that is wrong. The emphasis should be put on whether the perpetrator could have had a 'reasonable belief' that the victim was consenting, as this is the focus of the law. Our society centers discussions on the exact opposite and it is wrong and it is the reason this case is sending out so many negative messages for victims of sexual assault. A jury decided he could reasonably believe she consented (BELIEVE SHE DID, doesn't mean she did), OK. Whatever you believe, that is the outcome. However, to portion any blame whatsoever on the victim is totally unacceptable and not written in law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PHILINFRANCE Posted October 21, 2016 Report Share Posted October 21, 2016 2 hours ago, Coxy27 said: You're wrong. You're doing what the majority of people up and down the country are doing, and putting the emphasis on whether the girl involved consented and that is wrong. The emphasis should be put on whether the perpetrator could have had a 'reasonable belief' that the victim was consenting, as this is the focus of the law. Our society centers discussions on the exact opposite and it is wrong and it is the reason this case is sending out so many negative messages for victims of sexual assault. A jury decided he could reasonably believe she consented (BELIEVE SHE DID, doesn't mean she did), OK. Whatever you believe, that is the outcome. However, to portion any blame whatsoever on the victim is totally unacceptable and not written in law. Exactly. I referred to this in the thread at the time of the original trial. It would seem the 'new' evidence was sufficient to prove his point/support his argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Posted October 21, 2016 Report Share Posted October 21, 2016 Jeez is this thread on this vermin still going... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TBW Posted October 21, 2016 Report Share Posted October 21, 2016 4 hours ago, Super said: Jeez is this thread on this innocent man still going... Fixed for ya buddy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nebristolred Posted October 22, 2016 Report Share Posted October 22, 2016 On 1/4/2015 at 12:38, Stortz said: If you feel so strongly about it, how about actually reading some of the facts about it or even the thread you are so keen to post in before trotting out yet again the same discredited, speculative bullshit that many others have too? She could not give her consent through intoxication, it doesn't matter whether you or anyone else has an opinion on whether she did or not, in the eyes of the law she could not give consent, the same as a 12 year old cannot give consent. The nonsense people are coming out with in this thread is a clear indication of how dangerous it is to let unrepentant rapists like Evans pollute public opinion just because their girlfriends' dad has a load of money. Rape is rape. On 1/4/2015 at 12:54, Stortz said: I would have thought that with your law background you would be aware how important it is to have all the facts to hand before reaching a criminal verdict then- you know, the same as the jury who convicted him and appeal judges who told him to sod off did? Being so aggressive to me has backfired a bit here hasn't it mate. Presumably your attitude hasn't changed, you will absolutely refuse to question any facts given that the courts' decision is the final decision, and you are accepting of the verdict? On 1/4/2015 at 16:55, Ashtonboy said: Give me strength! Any ladies on here like to comment to the caveman? Etc EDIT: I should probably clarify that I think what he did was pretty damn scummy. But being battered (and criticised for not reading facts, hilariously), for suggesting an alternative viewpoint which has now turned out to be legally correct is a joke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stortz Posted October 26, 2016 Report Share Posted October 26, 2016 On 10/22/2016 at 14:51, nebristolred said: Being so aggressive to me has backfired a bit here hasn't it mate. Presumably your attitude hasn't changed, you will absolutely refuse to question any facts given that the courts' decision is the final decision, and you are accepting of the verdict? Etc EDIT: I should probably clarify that I think what he did was pretty damn scummy. But being battered (and criticised for not reading facts, hilariously), for suggesting an alternative viewpoint which has now turned out to be legally correct is a joke. It hasn't backfired at all 'mate' and I wasn't aggressive, rather incredulous that you were defending -at the time- a convicted rapist. Although we have to respect the verdict of the court, I personally believe that it is an absolute disgrace to use a complainant's sexual history in any rape case, particularly when such information is solicited with a reward. In your crowing jubilation you have missed a small point and that is that absolutely none of the facts of the incident have changed. The conviction has been overturned and the complainant's name has been besmirched further because it turns out she has enjoyed consensual sex on other occasions. Well done on your 'victory', I'm sure you are very proud. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nebristolred Posted October 26, 2016 Report Share Posted October 26, 2016 5 hours ago, Stortz said: It hasn't backfired at all 'mate' and I wasn't aggressive, rather incredulous that you were defending -at the time- a convicted rapist. Although we have to respect the verdict of the court, I personally believe that it is an absolute disgrace to use a complainant's sexual history in any rape case, particularly when such information is solicited with a reward. In your crowing jubilation you have missed a small point and that is that absolutely none of the facts of the incident have changed. The conviction has been overturned and the complainant's name has been besmirched further because it turns out she has enjoyed consensual sex on other occasions. Well done on your 'victory', I'm sure you are very proud. Why is it so incredulous to challenge a verdict? Do you believe that 100% of all verdicts are correct? The bold bit, I absolutely agree to be fair. That's out of order. I'd like to add that your 'jubilation' and 'victory' comments are nonsense. I have absolute sympathy for the girl as I have no reason to suspect that she doesn't deserve it; I just never though Ched Evans was guilty, these two are not mutually exclusive. Let's leave it now, it was immature of me to resurrect this but given circumstances, I felt the original comments were harsh in retrospect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitchurch1966 Posted October 26, 2016 Report Share Posted October 26, 2016 He admitted that he did not get consent because she was too drunk, they used her previous history to claim that this fairly normal behaviour for her so the presumption is that she knew what she was doing. The fact that seems to have been omitted in the appeal is that she did not consent, I always thought that was one of the main points about a rape accusation. I've only ever been in court to be divorced, as a man I was chewed up and spat out, how he got away with this I just don't know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.