Ched Evans wins High Court appeal

[Sexydadbod]

It doesn't help when you have idiots like this.

 

First reply was golden though

 

[Sexydadbod]

Searched up her name for curiosity and game across this gem from the same woman

http://conservativefiringline.com/justice-women-founder-julie-bindel-men-rapists-put-prison-shot/

I thought feminism was supposed to be all about equality? Seems legit, imagine the uproar if a man said this about a woman.

[GboroRam]

23 minutes ago, McLovin said:

Searched up her name for curiosity and game across this gem from the same woman

http://conservativefiringline.com/justice-women-founder-julie-bindel-men-rapists-put-prison-shot/

I thought feminism was supposed to be all about equality? Seems legit, imagine the uproar if a man said this about a woman.

Really though is it that different from all the people who disagreed with the original verdict and called for a retrial because they thought it was the wrong result? People don't agree sometimes, and one side will be in the wrong.

If more new evidence was released and a second retrial found him guilty again, all those people who thought him innocent wouldn't necessarily be quiet, would they.

Personally he's IMO a bit of an idiot. Not the worst crime ever committed but he's shown what his character is like. Hopefully he can rebuild his life in some shape or form.

[Sexydadbod]

8 minutes ago, GboroRam said:

Really though is it that different from all the people who disagreed with the original verdict and called for a retrial because they thought it was the wrong result? People don't agree sometimes, and one side will be in the wrong.

If more new evidence was released and a second retrial found him guilty again, all those people who thought him innocent wouldn't necessarily be quiet, would they.

Personally he's IMO a bit of an idiot. Not the worst crime ever committed but he's shown what his character is like. Hopefully he can rebuild his life in some shape or form.

It's one thing wanting a re-trial because they thought it was genuinely the wrong decision due to the pressure from external forces(radical feminists) but it's another wanting to challenge the result because you're a man hating freak, as seen from the above article where she calls all men rapists. He may be a bit of an idiot for cheating but is it really worse than what a lot of lads do at the weekends? Certainly not worth years of his footballing career and his life as a whole wasted for a crime he didn't commit

[Anon]

10 hours ago, McLovin said:

Searched up her name for curiosity and game across this gem from the same woman

http://conservativefiringline.com/justice-women-founder-julie-bindel-men-rapists-put-prison-shot/

I thought feminism was supposed to be all about equality? Seems legit, imagine the uproar if a man said this about a woman.

Bintdel is certifiably insane. Here's another one of her excellent ideas,

"It won’t, not unless men get their act together, have their power taken from them and behave themselves. I mean, I would actually put them all in some kind of camp where they can all drive around in quad bikes, or bicycles, or white vans. I would give them a choice of vehicles to drive around with, give them no , they wouldn’t be able to fight – we would have wardens, of course! Women who want to see their sons or male loved ones would be able to go and visit, or take them out like a library book, and then bring them back.

I hope heterosexuality doesn’t survive, actually. I would like to see a truce on heterosexuality. I would like an amnesty on heterosexuality until we have sorted ourselves out. Because under patriarchy it’s ****.

And I am sick of hearing from individual women that their men are all right. Those men have been shored up by the advantages of patriarchy and they are complacent, they are not stopping other men from being ****.

I would love to see a women’s liberation that results in women turning away from men and saying: “when you come back as human beings, then we might look again.”"

It's hardly surprising that she's been triggered by the Evans retrial since she's the type of feminist that thinks holding a door open for or saying "hello" to a woman is rape. Mad as a box of frogs.

[PistoldPete2]

10 hours ago, GboroRam said:

Really though is it that different from all the people who disagreed with the original verdict and called for a retrial because they thought it was the wrong result? People don't agree sometimes, and one side will be in the wrong.

If more new evidence was released and a second retrial found him guilty again, all those people who thought him innocent wouldn't necessarily be quiet, would they.

Personally he's IMO a bit of an idiot. Not the worst crime ever committed but he's shown what his character is like. Hopefully he can rebuild his life in some shape or form.

Yes it is very different. I thought ched evans was not guilty of rape or any crime. I thought pistorious was guilty of murder. Neither of those results were given at the first trials but justice was done in the end.

but I certainly didn't form either opinion because of anything to do with gender. Both were alleged crimes by men against women. The courts got the verdicts the wrong way round, and that's why I thought they needed to be changed. Purely on facts , purely on the evidence , and nothing to do with any ranting about men v women. 

[McRamFan]

Regardless of the fact that he has been cleared, he is a cheat.  He took advantage of a situation for his own gratification, without a care for his partner, or any potential outcome.  To me that is a clear indication of the mindset of the boy.

Cheats should not prosper.

[Anon]

4 minutes ago, McRamFan said:

Regardless of the fact that he has been cleared, he is a cheat.  He took advantage of a situation for his own gratification, without a care for his partner, or any potential outcome.  To me that is a clear indication of the mindset of the boy.

Cheats should not prosper.

You won't find many in this thread who disagree with you. The thing is though, that whilst most people agree that cheats shouldn't prosper, they also think that cheats shouldn't be wrongfully imprisoned or barred from ever working again.

[PistoldPete2]

1 hour ago, Anon said:

You won't find many in this thread who disagree with you. The thing is though, that whilst most people agree that cheats shouldn't prosper, they also think that cheats shouldn't be wrongfully imprisoned or barred from ever working again.

Agreed. I also find it pretty hypocritical that people are criticising evans for his moral behaviour. People quite rightly should steer clear of making moral judgments about the lady sleeping with lots of men and wanting rough sex. So what ? None of our business, except to establish the credibility of the defendants version of how the sex happened which it did. 

 Ditto evans behaviour. He's done nothing illegal so leave the guy alone. 

[G STAR RAM]

It's amazing what you are allowed to say about men with absolutely no comeback.

Substitute men for an ethnic minority in her rants and she would be getting a visit from the local constabulary.

[McRamFan]

22 hours ago, Anon said:

You won't find many in this thread who disagree with you. The thing is though, that whilst most people agree that cheats shouldn't prosper, they also think that cheats shouldn't be wrongfully imprisoned or barred from ever working again.

He should have not put himself in that position, and really having sex with a girl straight after your mate has been there?

Then relying on an ex to expose her past sex live to get yourself off the hook? Not even sure if that is ethical and could be challenged further down the line.

His girlfriend begging the night desk bloke to 'find' some 'evidence' as there was a £10k reward.

Stinks...

[Anon]

1 hour ago, McRamFan said:

He should have not put himself in that position, and really having sex with a girl straight after your mate has been there?

Then relying on an ex to expose her past sex live to get yourself off the hook? Not even sure if that is ethical and could be challenged further down the line.

His girlfriend begging the night desk bloke to 'find' some 'evidence' as there was a £10k reward.

Stinks...

He shouldn't have put himself in that position? Way to slut shame him. I'd love to see your reaction if I posted the exact same thing about the girl involved

Establishing character absolutely is ethical. It is completely logical to examine previous sexual behaviour when the case being tried is very specifically related to that behaviour.

Did the night porter find any new evidence?

[McRamFan]

8 minutes ago, Anon said:

He shouldn't have put himself in that position? Way to slut shame him. I'd love to see your reaction if I posted the exact same thing about the girl involved

Establishing character absolutely is ethical. It is completely logical to examine previous sexual behaviour when the case being tried is very specifically related to that behaviour.

Did the night porter find any new evidence?

No he should not have.

The girl was stupid to get that drunk that she could not remember, especially as it has now been stated it has happened in the past, however just because she does this, it does not give someone the right to help themselves.

Questions about a complainant’s previous sexual history are not allowed in sex trials, unless a very strict set of criteria (set out in section 41 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999) are met. What has happened is that they have suddenly found an 'ex' or two who can state her behaviour is historical, or it has happened before, and they can use that point of law to try and overturn the decision.  All perfectly legal, just funny that it did not come up at the original trial.

Night porter did not have any evidence to get a not guilty verdict in the first trial, even after being approached twice by Ched's girlfriend.  They where desperatly looking for absolutly anything to make it not beyound reasonable doubt.

 

[Mostyn6]

1 hour ago, McRamFan said:

All perfectly legal, just funny that it did not come up at the original trial.

well, it's the first time in a high-profile and well publicised trial that justice ruled that a man is responsible for over-ruling a woman's ability to make a decision.

[McRamFan]

5 minutes ago, Mostyn6 said:

well, it's the first time in a high-profile and well publicised trial that justice ruled that a man is responsible for over-ruling a woman's ability to make a decision.

Not guilty does not mean he is inocent, it means there is sufficient doubt to prove him guilty.  Even if a juror was 99.99% sure he was guilty, that 0.01% still means he is not guilty.

No winners here accept Evans lawyers.

[PistoldPete2]

1 hour ago, McRamFan said:

No he should not have.

The girl was stupid to get that drunk that she could not remember, especially as it has now been stated it has happened in the past, however just because she does this, it does not give someone the right to help themselves.

Questions about a complainant’s previous sexual history are not allowed in sex trials, unless a very strict set of criteria (set out in section 41 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999) are met. What has happened is that they have suddenly found an 'ex' or two who can state her behaviour is historical, or it has happened before, and they can use that point of law to try and overturn the decision.  All perfectly legal, just funny that it did not come up at the original trial.

Night porter did not have any evidence to get a not guilty verdict in the first trial, even after being approached twice by Ched's girlfriend.  They where desperatly looking for absolutly anything to make it not beyound reasonable doubt.

 

It's not funny it didn't come up at the original trial... It's bloody incompetent of the prosecuting authorities. The evidence was clear relevant and hardly historic...the two witnesses talked about events a month either side of the alleged offence. It shouldn't really have been necessary as there was never enough evidence to convict at the first trial. The best way to avoid trawling through her past sex life is to have never brought the case to trial in the first place. Evans says the lady never claimed she had been raped, it was only the prosecutors idea to bring that charge... They really should be held to account. I think both complainant and defendant should win large compensation for the aggravation they have been put to as result of incompetence by the authorities.

[Mostyn6]

6 minutes ago, McRamFan said:

Not guilty does not mean he is inocent, it means there is sufficient doubt to prove him guilty.  Even if a juror was 99.99% sure he was guilty, that 0.01% still means he is not guilty.

No winners here accept Evans lawyers.

you're digressing. You suggested it odd that the previous character of the alleged victim wasn't relevant in the original trial, I'm suggesting there's no precedent for such an outcome where a MAN is found guilty on the basis that the WOMAN is not responsible for her own actions, due to her perceived level of sobriety.

[McRamFan]

2 hours ago, Mostyn6 said:

you're digressing. You suggested it odd that the previous character of the alleged victim wasn't relevant in the original trial, I'm suggesting there's no precedent for such an outcome where a MAN is found guilty on the basis that the WOMAN is not responsible for her own actions, due to her perceived level of sobriety.

You may be right, there may be no precedent.

[PistoldPete2]

7 hours ago, McRamFan said:

Not guilty does not mean he is inocent, it means there is sufficient doubt to prove him guilty.  Even if a juror was 99.99% sure he was guilty, that 0.01% still means he is not guilty.

No winners here accept Evans lawyers.

No, not guilty means there was AT LEAST a reasonable doubt about any alleged guilt. The jury retired for less than two hours , ( after two weeks of evidence ) and even that two hours included a lunch break. So it seems they considered There was not really any doubt at all that he was not  guilty. Quite right too. It was a completely fatuous prosecution. 

As as for the man v woman debate well there's nothing to be said about this self styled campaigner  people have quoted from. She's obviously a nutcase. Whilst I do sympathise with the difficulty some women may experience in getting a  rape conviction, I don't see any easy answers. Fact is the nature of a rape allegation is that it's often one persons word against another's ( unless it's a threesome as in the evans case) . So how can you convict beyond reasonable doubt? Change the law so the burden of proof becomes less on the defendant? The evans case certainly doesn't help that cause as it's obvious the first jury got it wrong. The consequences of a false conviction, wrongful imprisonment and going on the sex offenders list for 15 years are just too awful to risk getting it wrong. 

 

 

[McRamFan]

9 hours ago, PistoldPete2 said:

No, not guilty means there was AT LEAST a reasonable doubt about any alleged guilt. The jury retired for less than two hours , ( after two weeks of evidence ) and even that two hours included a lunch break. So it seems they considered There was not really any doubt at all that he was not  guilty. Quite right too. It was a completely fatuous prosecution. 

As as for the man v woman debate well there's nothing to be said about this self styled campaigner  people have quoted from. She's obviously a nutcase. Whilst I do sympathise with the difficulty some women may experience in getting a  rape conviction, I don't see any easy answers. Fact is the nature of a rape allegation is that it's often one persons word against another's ( unless it's a threesome as in the evans case) . So how can you convict beyond reasonable doubt? Change the law so the burden of proof becomes less on the defendant? The evans case certainly doesn't help that cause as it's obvious the first jury got it wrong. The consequences of a false conviction, wrongful imprisonment and going on the sex offenders list for 15 years are just too awful to risk getting it wrong. 

 

 

You are wrong.

Not a fan of the Sun newspaper, however this piece is quite good and actually not done by the Sun directly....I'll copy the first one or two, go read the rest...

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/1983051/barrister-separates-fact-from-fiction-after-footballer-was-acquitted-of-rape-at-his-retrial/

1. So Ched Evans has been proved innocent, right?

Wrong. You’d be forgiven for thinking this, given that it was in the prepared statement read out by his solicitor, but Ched Evans has not “demonstrated his innocence”. That is not how our criminal justice system operates. It is not a means by which the truth of a situation or event is conclusively and fully determined.

Rather the jury are asked one simple question – are you sure that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt (or, as juries are commonly instructed, so that you are sure)? “Not guilty” means just that. The jury were not sure that he was guilty. They may have decided that he was totally, utterly innocent, but we don’t know.

All we know is that they considered the evidence, and were less than sure of his guilt. As I tell juries in every closing speech – if you think the defendant probably did it, he’s still not guilty.

2. Well at the very least, the verdict means that the complainant has lied, surely?

No. Absolutely not. A not guilty verdict in most cases is insufficient to safely infer that the jury have concluded that a complainant lied (as opposed to the jury not being sure one way or the other), but in this case the facts suggest the opposite.

As the Court of Appeal made clear in its judgment allowing the appeal, X has never asserted that she was raped.

She has always simply maintained that she had no memory of what happened. It was the prosecution case – the case theory of the Crown Prosecution Service – that she was raped.

The defence case was based not on the “usual” he said/ she said dispute over consent, but rather he said/ she can’t remember. There is absolutely no safe basis for suggesting she has lied, or, to quell the more hysterical calls, that she should be prosecuted on the basis of Evans’ acquittal.

 

He may not be guilty of rape, however he is not innocent in his actions.  The law can be bent to the power of money, that needs to be changed.