Ched Evans (3 Viewers)

[Otis]

Well they too are showing a savage disregard for a victim of a crime, and are causing in their own way others to probably consider whether it's worth coming forward or not.

The Chuckle Brothers have a very interesting take on this.

Do the Chuckle Brothers follow court cases as part of their job?

NW, you are better than this. I'm not talking about any old Tom, Dick, or Harry. These are people who follow court cases as part of their jobs.

This is getting totally ridiculous.

And in case you are a little deaf, I BELIEVE HIM TO BE GUILTY!!!!!

:facepalm:

 

---

[Deleted member 5849]

Do the Chuckle Brothers follow court cases as part of their job?

NW, you are better than this. I'm not talking about any old Tom, Dick, or Harry. These are people who follow court cases as part of their jobs.

This is getting totally ridiculous.

And in case you are a little deaf, I BELIEVE HIM TO BE GUILTY!!!!!

:facepalm:

It's getting totally ridiculous because you appear to be wilfully missing my point.

Oh it makes me laugh how you can't get it.

 

[Otis]

We need to sit down over a pint and I bet to a pound to a shilling we have exactly the same view on rape and what constitutes rape.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

We need to sit down over a pint and I bet to a pound to a shilling we have exactly the same view on rape and what constitutes rape.

But would we have the same view as Anne Diamond?

 

[Otis]

It's getting totally ridiculous because you appear to be wilfully missing my point.

Oh it makes me laugh how you can't get it.

So, what is your point? It just seems I am not allowed to say some people who followed the case say there is cause for the conviction to be declared unsafe. I'm pretty sure it isn't just about what constitutes rape either by all accounts.

 

[Otis]

But would we have the same view as Anne Diamond?

I don't know what her view is.

 

[stupot07]

I've just found some evidence that Hitler did no wrong. http://nazisweregoodpeople.tumblr.com

It must be true it's on the Internet.

 

[Otis]

I've just found some evidence that Hitler did no wrong. http://nazisweregoodpeople.tumblr.com

It must be true it's on the Internet.

Stupot, has anyone, anywhere on here said the verdict was wrong? Anyone at all?

 

[wingy]

I've just found some evidence that Hitler did no wrong. http://nazisweregoodpeople.tumblr.com

It must be true it's on the Internet.

Napolean was a top chap too according to the presenter of the recent BBC trilogy.

 

[Otis]

'Ched Evans has successfully applied to have previously unavailable evidence examined by the Criminal Cases Review Commission.'

I do believe he is allowed to do that and the CCRC have quite rightly decided to look at the previously unavailable evidence.

Besides, if Hitler had been alive and found guilty of war crimes, I am pretty sure he would have the right to appeal.

 

[Samo]

Well they too are showing a savage disregard for a victim of a crime, and are causing in their own way others to probably consider whether it's worth coming forward or not.

The Chuckle Brothers have a very interesting take on this.

So anyone expressing any other view than that of the prosecution is showing a 'savage disregard for a victim of crime'? It's a good thing those that fought for the rights of the Birmingham Six were not of the same mind. Disgusting post from someone who should know better.

 

[Otis]

So anyone expressing any other view than that of the prosecution is showing a 'savage disregard for a victim of crime'? It's a good thing those that fought for the rights of the Birmingham Six were not of the same mind. Disgusting post from someone who should know better.

To be fair, NW is usually a top, top poster.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

So anyone expressing any other view than that of the prosecution is showing a 'savage disregard for a victim of crime'? It's a good thing those that fought for the rights of the Birmingham Six were not of the same mind. Disgusting post from someone who should know better.

It's not exactly the same, is it.

Given the whole argument being mooted is the girl wasn't that drunk after all... it'd be like suggesting those who were targeted in the Birmingham Pub bombings were asking for it and made the whole thing up.

 

[Samo]

To be fair, NW is usually a top, top poster.

Yes... and he should know better.

 

[Samo]

It's not exactly the same, is it.

Given the whole argument being mooted is the girl wasn't that drunk after all... it'd be like suggesting those who were targeted in the Birmingham Pub bombings were asking for it and made the whole thing up.

There is a deeper principal involved here as you well know.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

There is a deeper principal involved here as you well know.

The principle of not putting a victim of a crime on trial after the event, yes.

 

[Grendel]

There is certainly room for debate as demonstrated on here. And if you think this is over you are very naive.

Well I suppose so. I guess this is exactly the kind of debate that the defence team want.

There is always debate and their is always conjecture. The ultimate truth though is that 12 people looked at the evidence in a courtroom and decided he was guilty. I have been on a jury. They are curious affairs but ultimately the system works. They view evidence and they look at the people in the dock.

They form opinions. They are in 99% of circumstances they are right.

 

[Samo]

The principle of not putting a victim of a crime on trial after the event, yes.

Who is doing that? You know exactly what I am talking about.

 

[Otis]

Well I suppose so. I guess this is exactly the kind of debate that the defence team want.

There is always debate and their is always conjecture. The ultimate truth though is that 12 people looked at the evidence in a courtroom and decided he was guilty. I have been on a jury. They are curious affairs but ultimately the system works. They view evidence and they look at the people in the dock.

They form opinions. They are in 99% of circumstances they are right.

Totally agree with that.

 

[Samo]

Well I suppose so. I guess this is exactly the kind of debate that the defence team want.

There is always debate and their is always conjecture. The ultimate truth though is that 12 people looked at the evidence in a courtroom and decided he was guilty. I have been on a jury. They are curious affairs but ultimately the system works. They view evidence and they look at the people in the dock.

They form opinions. They are in 99% of circumstances they are right.

Are they? Please supply the evidence to back that claim.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

Who is doing that? You know exactly what I am talking about.

Well this thread has some very unsavoury opinions in places, doing exactly that.

So, indeed, do certain newspaper articles.

 

[Samo]

Well I suppose so. I guess this is exactly the kind of debate that the defence team want.

There is always debate and their is always conjecture. The ultimate truth though is that 12 people looked at the evidence in a courtroom and decided he was guilty. I have been on a jury. They are curious affairs but ultimately the system works. They view evidence and they look at the people in the dock.

They form opinions. They are in 99% of circumstances they are right.

The fact is that miscarriages of justice happen all the time and sometimes it takes many decades to right those wrongs.

 

[Samo]

Well this thread has some very unsavoury opinions in places, doing exactly that.

So, indeed, do certain newspaper articles.

As is yours in my opinion.

 

[Moff]

The fact is that miscarriages of justice happen all the time and sometimes it takes many decades to right those wrongs.

Do they happen all the time, or just sometimes?

If you were to look at all the Criminal Cases dealt with by the courts, I would say the percentage of miscarraiges are very very small. Obviously if you have evidence to the contrary I would be happy to read it.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

As is yours in my opinion. You are the polar opposite of those who would lynch him and as such, just like them, an enemy of reason

I'm the polar opposite of those who would lynch him?
Actually, I'll edit that line out.

 

[Otis]

The principle of not putting a victim of a crime on trial after the event, yes.

Agree with this too, but if someone found guilty does have further evidence, not heard in court, then he has a right to appeal. Hope this doesn't involve the victim back in court, but justice must be seen to be done.

As it stands, justice was done and Evans rightly convicted. If he has new evidence though that could change the ruling, this needs to be heard.

The CCRC are not mugs and they will judge it inadmissible or not on sufficient grounds and will dismiss it. If it casts doubt on the verdict the court will hear the right of appeal.

 

[Samo]

I'm the polar opposite of those who would lynch him?
Actually, I'll edit that line out.

Just as dangerous, my mistake it's late!

 

[Deleted member 5849]

Agree with this too, but if someone found guilty does have further evidence, not heard in court, then he has a right to appeal.

He does.

And wouldn't it have been nice if 'new evidence' had been seen through the court, rather than the defendent dragging up character aspersions through the media.

Hope this doesn't involve the victim back in court, but justice must be seen to be done.

The victim having to give evidence in court may be traumatic, but is somewhat different to a trial through media.

 

[Samo]

Do they happen all the time, or just sometimes?

If you were to look at all the Criminal Cases dealt with by the courts, I would say the percentage of miscarraiges are very very small. Obviously if you have evidence to the contrary I would be happy to read it.

Do you have evidence to support that view?

 

[Deleted member 5849]

Just as dangerous, my mistake it's late!

Then perhaps when you awake in the morning you'll see the nuance

 

[Samo]

He does.

And wouldn't it have been nice if 'new evidence' had been seen through the court, rather than the defendent dragging up character aspersions through the media.


The victim having to give evidence in court may be traumatic, but is somewhat different to a trial through media.

Has not the defendant (if eventually proven innocent) endured both?

 

[Moff]

Do you have evidence to support that view?

Yes the small amount of overturned cases that go through the legal system. The proportion is a tiny percentage of all cases heard.

Do you have evidence to the contrary? as you stated they happen all the time, as I would be interested to see the evidence you base this from.
Obviously Samo if you can provide detail showing what you said is true, I will stand corrected.

 

[Samo]

Then perhaps when you awake in the morning you'll see the nuance

Doubt it. I rarely get confused about fairness.

 

[Otis]

He does.

And wouldn't it have been nice if 'new evidence' had been seen through the court, rather than the defendent dragging up character aspersions through the media.



The victim having to give evidence in court may be traumatic, but is somewhat different to a trial through media.

Agree.

Sounds like a lot of this new 'evidence' is witness statements. That does seem to hold much credence I would have thought. People do lie on behalf of others.

He certainly needs something a bit more concrete, unless these witnesses are police officers, or people from the victim's side changing stories.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

Has not the defendant (if eventually proven innocent) endured both?

If the defendent were to eventually be proven innocent, he would deserve an extremely large payout, and the chat show of his choice.

He hasn't, however. Not at three times of trying.

The victim however has been proven the victim on three separate occasions, and now has to go through it all a fourth time.

It isn't exactly a ringing endorsement to encourage people to come forward.