Nick
Administrator
They are trying their hardest with that celebrity couple, no idea why they are going to those lengths when everybody knows who it is!
Keeping it out of the press and social media might be more of a challenge, mind you!
How much would it fuck you over (as admin) if that was discussed on here? Why the fuck the courts are referring to them as PJS, or whatever it is, I'll never understand! Red herring??They are trying their hardest with that celebrity couple, no idea why they are going to those lengths when everybody knows who it is!
I'll keep their names off just in case, interesting the choice of couple silhouettes used too...How much would it fuck you over (as admin) if that was discussed on here? Why the fuck the courts are referring to them as PJS, or whatever it is, I'll never understand! Red herring??
Is it of the Chuckle Brothers?I'll keep their names off just in case, interesting the choice of couple silhouettes used too...
I'd say a percentage of city players have cheated on a partner. Whilst wrong, it's a whole different story to rapeAt the end of the day he's still a scumbag. He cheated on his other half, at best he had consensual sex with someone who may not have made that decision if she was sober while he himself was sober so he still took advantage of her and did that while sober himself so he cant even hide behind the excuse that he was drunk himself and behaved in a way he wouldn't have normally and it was a drunken mistake. At worst he's going to be convicted again. There is no scenario here where by the standards I live by myself he doesn't come out of this any other way than a scumbag. At best he won't be as big a scumbag as the scumbag I thought he was previously. Not exactly a glowing reference. I still wouldn't want him here.
At the end of the day he's still a scumbag. He cheated on his other half, at best he had consensual sex with someone who may not have made that decision if she was sober while he himself was sober so he still took advantage of her and did that while sober himself so he cant even hide behind the excuse that he was drunk himself and behaved in a way he wouldn't have normally and it was a drunken mistake. At worst he's going to be convicted again. There is no scenario here where by the standards I live by myself he doesn't come out of this any other way than a scumbag. At best he won't be as big a scumbag as the scumbag I thought he was previously. Not exactly a glowing reference. I still wouldn't want him here.
IF the new jury finds the new evidence compelling (which is why the Court of Appeal has ordered a retrial), and find him not guilty, it would be possible for him to issue a civil claim against his accuser for defamation.
But then on the other hand, how many innocent men are inside or have been because they didn't have the money for a pi and good legal team?I agree and also it's wealth and influence that's given him this opportunity to scrutinise all legal aspects to secure an appeal of this nature.
The subsequent harassment was an attempt to intimidate and bully the accuser and in itself justifies his sentence. He won't get any financial recompense I hope and I hope he remains a pariah.
I'd say a percentage of city players have cheated on a partner. Whilst wrong, it's a whole different story to rape
The cheating is not the big issue for me. At the end of the day that for the most part between him and his partner but I certainly don't find it an endearing quality.
The issue for me is he took advantage of someone in a vulnerable state whether she said yes, no or nothing because she was to vulnerable to talk. They're fine lines for me and not something I would personally by the standards I expect of myself or anyone else for that matter to take advantage of especially if the person taking the advantage isn't in the same vulnerable state.
It can only be a drunken mistake if both people are drunk and therefore on an equal footing. It's the fact that he was sober that is worrying to me and what it says about this person.
What I don't get is that if she is so drunk and out of it then it is rape isn't it and what he was convicted of? Which has just been overturned.
The cheating is not the big issue for me. At the end of the day that for the most part between him and his partner but I certainly don't find it an endearing quality.
The issue for me is he took advantage of someone in a vulnerable state whether she said yes, no or nothing because she was to vulnerable to talk. They're fine lines for me and not something I would personally by the standards I expect of myself or anyone else for that matter to take advantage of especially if the person taking the advantage isn't in the same vulnerable state.
It can only be a drunken mistake if both people are drunk and therefore on an equal footing. It's the fact that he was sober that is worrying to me and what it says about this person.
But then on the other hand, how many innocent men are inside or have been because they didn't have the money for a pi and good legal team?
I'd guess it all revolves around this evidence.
Has he himself bullied the girl or just trying his best to prove his innocence? After all, he has done his time for the crime now hasn't he?
One or two starting to be judge and jury again. Grendel if it was wealth and influence that won his appeal then we are in a sad society. That's simply silly talk. He had the conviction quashed because something was found to be very amiss. There are only a handful of factors where he could have won the appeal and a re trial appropriate. It suggest that the prosecution side has been the dirty dealers as it were. But we shall have to wait and see.
It wasn't wealth and influence that has got Evans a retrial, but it has undoubtedly got him to this position a lot faster than almost anyone else who claims to have been a victim of a miscarriage of justice. Had Ched Evans been a normal chap no one had heard of, without substantial wealth and a slick PR campaign then it is very unlikely that this would have been turned around so quickly. Many people are still in jail (or even die) awaiting their case reviews - Evans now walks around a free man.
See http://thejusticegap.com/2014/10/ccrc-fast-tracking-ched-evans/ - and compare with http://thejusticegap.com/2013/11/susan-may-cleared-name-remain-locked/
I totally agree it's for the courts to decide (again) whether he was guilty of the offence he was charged with, but I'm quite capable of making my own judgement on what kind of person he is based on the evidence that isn't contested. He might be able to clear his name in a legal sense, but I doubt that would greatly change my opinion of him; I suspect others will feel the same.
As for the prosecution being 'dirty dealers', I believe this appeal has been allowed because of new evidence submitted. The court that convicted him and a subsequent court of appeal that upheld the conviction would, by definition, not have had this evidence to hand.
If you genuinely believe you didn't do it, why would you show remorse? Genuine question. If he thinks he didn't do anything wrong and she is lying why would he be remorseful?
Edit: And to save going back and forth for hours I'm not saying I believe he is innocent as at the moment he clearly isn't. But we'll see after the appeal. I wouldn't have him here though. Not worth it and we don't need him.
The appeal was allowed after judges gave the go-ahead for two former sexual partners of the alleged victim to give explicit evidence in court about her sex life, a rare move that is being widely condemned by women’s support groups and campaigners.
One group, Women Against Rape (WAR), told the Guardian the decision “drove a coach and horses” through legislation designed to protect victims and could stop other abused women coming forward for fear they would be quizzed about their sex lives.
It can now be revealed that:
- During the appeal case that led to the retrial, lawyers for the crown suggested the two new witnesses may have been “fed” information by those close to Evans. This claim was rejected by Evans’s side.
- Evans’s fiancee, Massey, was accused in legal argument during the second trial of offering an “inducement” to a key witness. The prosecution said this had “the flavour of a bribe”. The trial judge disagreed with this description.
- The appeal court judges, whose decision can be reported for the first time, expressed “a considerable degree of hesitation” before allowing in the new evidence of the former partners because it resulted in the victim’s sexual behaviour being subject to forensic scrutiny – which is almost always banned.
- The complainant continues to be named and abused on social media though the law gives her lifelong anonymity. The police are investigating one blog that identified her during the trial
I expect we will see public apologies from all who tarred his name now? Jess Ennis Hill's retirement was timely to remove herself from the public eye.
I assume the "victim" will be named and shamed now and will have to face the public after falsely accusing him and ruining his life.
I expect we will see public apologies from all who tarred his name now? Jess Ennis Hill's retirement was timely to remove herself from the public eye.
I assume the "victim" will be named and shamed now and will have to face the public after falsely accusing him and ruining his life.
Well you are the only one on this forum defending his rights - who else is? Perhaps one other but Tony, sick boy NW Wingy etc. are firmly against what is happening
You are wrong and I can assure you if Evans defence team observed your posts they would quote you in their website as a supporter. You still refuse to acknowledge his intimidation tactics as a means to achieve his end.
Ultimately it matters not. The public will decide. Twelve of them decided the first time round. Excluding the public in an appeals court will mean one thing.
Most will view him for the filth he is and treat him as he deserves.
He will never play football again and will be a broken man. Justice will prevail in the end.
Looking at the evidence that was permitted, it isn't clear that she wasn't a victim. Might be promiscuous in nature but nowhere is there any evidence that she consented to sex with Evans. She's received plenty of grief over it herself by the sounds of it, his life is hardly ruined.
To be fair, she didn't accuse him of rape. The police decided that for her.
Grendel in windmilling in shockerOops?
And this makes it right does it?He's a bad role model no doubt, and his actions were a bit idiotic, but nothing worse than what goes on during uni and Saturday nights across the world.
I recall seeing a video of her enjoying and asking him to carry on with what he was doing. Not really a victim from that point. The CPS argument was that she was too drunk to consent but I think she knew full well what was going on.
I also read that the police refused to get the 'victims' deleted facebook posts back up and some bloke in America did it off his own back. She'd been boasting about getting rich and blabbering on about how she was going to spend the money she'd get on cars and holidays.
Like EarlsdonSB says, something wasn't right with the whole case from the start. That doesn't detract from the fact that he's a pretty shitty human being to do that sort of thing when his girlfriend is tucked up at home.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?