StringerBell Posted April 21, 2016 Share Posted April 21, 2016 2 hours ago, Mostyn6 said: the conviction should never have stood on the foolish grounds that a woman is not responsible for her actions when she's gotten herself drunk, yet a man has to face the consequences regardless. A woman can't rape under UK law I don't think unless she's using some kind of instrument. Inserting is considered rape but enveloping is sexual assault or some nonsense. Ridiculous. edit- I realise you didn't say anything about that. I'm just venting about the general situation with gynocentism in our justice system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PistoldPete2 Posted April 21, 2016 Share Posted April 21, 2016 2 hours ago, Mostyn6 said: the conviction should never have stood on the foolish grounds that a woman is not responsible for her actions when she's gotten herself drunk, yet a man has to face the consequences regardless. Women should be protected from opportunistic guys plying them with drinks and then shagging them when they are comatose. But in this case , the accused didn't give her any drinks, and whilst she may have been abit squiffy she was a long way from being too drunk to consent. And how one guy can be innocent and another guilty defies any rational explanation especially when it's the second guy. When Evans did the deed, there were two people saying she consented ( when macdonald did the deed it was just him who said she consented) . It it looks like some form of justice will finally be achieved but it's all far, far too late in the day and is a damning indictment of our legal system and on the prosecuting authorities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McRamFan Posted April 21, 2016 Share Posted April 21, 2016 If the evidence was so compelling there would be no needed for a retrial. The conviction of rape has been quashed. The judge still feels that there is a case to answer and Evans is still on bail. No professional footballer should be in a situation like this and for the British legal system, it is showing, yet again, throw enough money at it.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MuespachRam Posted April 21, 2016 Share Posted April 21, 2016 1 hour ago, McRamFan said: If the evidence was so compelling there would be no needed for a retrial. The conviction of rape has been quashed. The judge still feels that there is a case to answer and Evans is still on bail. No professional footballer should be in a situation like this and for the British legal system, it is showing, yet again, throw enough money at it.... Or it shows the British legal system up as inadequate after getting it wrong in the first place..? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PistoldPete2 Posted April 21, 2016 Share Posted April 21, 2016 1 minute ago, MuespachRam said: Or it shows the British legal system up as inadequate after getting it wrong in the first place..? Yes, as I say its far too late , 5 years after the event and still counting. Thats a huge lump out of a young athlete's career and he will never have that time back. The legal system is designed by lawyers for lawyers and its inadequacies are there for all to see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PistoldPete2 Posted April 21, 2016 Share Posted April 21, 2016 2 hours ago, StringerBell said: A woman can't rape under UK law I don't think unless she's using some kind of instrument. Inserting is considered rape but enveloping is sexual assault or some nonsense. Ridiculous. edit- I realise you didn't say anything about that. I'm just venting about the general situation with gynocentism in our justice system. I think you are wrong.. a conviction of rape rape requires there to have been penetration with a penis, so only a man or some transgender people can be guilty of rape. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davenportram Posted April 21, 2016 Share Posted April 21, 2016 the conviction has been quashed, he has not been acquitted. Basically back to before the original trial. I dint know how any retrial can be considered fair due to the reporting of the case since though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McRamFan Posted April 21, 2016 Share Posted April 21, 2016 http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/new-evidence-rapist-footballer-ched-10237013 Today we can reveal details of the new evidence which footballer Ched Evans thinks will help clear his name when his conviction for rape is referred back to the court of appeal. A case file drawn up by private investigators includes testimony from at least 14 women and men who knew his victim. Their accounts are believed to allege “significant inconsistencies” about the lifestyle of the woman he raped in a hotel bedroom, according to an investigation by the Sunday Mirror. The dossier – which will be put to Appeal Court judges – also criticises the police investigation and an alleged failure to secure potentially crucial CCTV footage. And the investigators, hired by the wealthy father of Evans’ pregnant fiancée Natasha Massey, even attack the summing up made by the trial judge, alleging he misled the jury. So basically a PI and ex Copper has compiled a **** file on her, they have slated the process and basically threw the kitchen sink at it. Just because some person puts themselves about and will sleep with someone they know after an hour and a few drinks, does not mean anyone can help themselves afterwards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gypsy Ram Posted April 21, 2016 Share Posted April 21, 2016 1 hour ago, PistoldPete2 said: I think you are wrong.. a conviction of rape rape requires there to have been penetration with a penis, so only a man or some transgender people can be guilty of rape. What if a strapon is involved? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anon Posted April 21, 2016 Share Posted April 21, 2016 45 minutes ago, McRamFan said: So basically a PI and ex Copper has compiled a **** file on her, they have slated the process and basically threw the kitchen sink at it. Just because some person puts themselves about and will sleep with someone they know after an hour and a few drinks, does not mean anyone can help themselves afterwards. So character evidence is irrelevant. Thank you for clearing that up for us Rumpole. I'll remind you of that the next time some meathead is up in court for spousal abuse and we can't call any character witnesses to establish his violent tendencies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McRamFan Posted April 21, 2016 Share Posted April 21, 2016 17 minutes ago, Anon said: So character evidence is irrelevant. Thank you for clearing that up for us Rumpole. I'll remind you of that the next time some meathead is up in court for spousal abuse and we can't call any character witnesses to establish his violent tendencies. Its hearsay, you need proof and facts, not just some blokes opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PistoldPete2 Posted April 21, 2016 Share Posted April 21, 2016 34 minutes ago, McRamFan said: Its hearsay, you need proof and facts, not just some blokes opinion. The prosecution will need proof (beyond reasonable doubt) and facts to secure a conviction. They havent done so far. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philmycock Posted April 21, 2016 Share Posted April 21, 2016 Maybe personal texts/messages from her to friends after the event have been found, maybe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StringerBell Posted April 21, 2016 Share Posted April 21, 2016 3 hours ago, PistoldPete2 said: I think you are wrong.. a conviction of rape rape requires there to have been penetration with a penis, so only a man or some transgender people can be guilty of rape. Right... So what am I wrong about? It only being a penis? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sith Happens Posted April 21, 2016 Share Posted April 21, 2016 So this will now drag on again for how many months, it will probably take ages for a retrial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PistoldPete2 Posted April 21, 2016 Share Posted April 21, 2016 36 minutes ago, StringerBell said: Right... So what am I wrong about? It only being a penis? Yes only men or certain transgenders can be found guilty of rape. If you think thats unfair I think that emphasises your point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davenportram Posted April 21, 2016 Share Posted April 21, 2016 2 hours ago, Anon said: So character evidence is irrelevant. Thank you for clearing that up for us Rumpole. I'll remind you of that the next time some meathead is up in court for spousal abuse and we can't call any character witnesses to establish his violent tendencies. that's character evidence of the defendant not the victim. In this case slating the alleged victims character is like saying "she's a slapper so it isn't rape" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mostyn6 Posted April 21, 2016 Share Posted April 21, 2016 I heard someone managed to hack twitter (or facebook) where the alleged victim had allegedly posted statuses bragging about coming into money and I believe there was a "kerching" comment, with loads of smileys. Hardly the actions of a rape victim who's life has been ruined, you'd suggest. I know victims of serious crimes, including sexual assault. They would rather have not gone through the ordeal than have a load of compensation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StringerBell Posted April 21, 2016 Share Posted April 21, 2016 11 minutes ago, PistoldPete2 said: Yes only men or certain transgenders can be found guilty of rape. If you think thats unfair I think that emphasises your point. Absolutely it does. That makes it even worse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anon Posted April 21, 2016 Share Posted April 21, 2016 11 minutes ago, davenportram said: that's character evidence of the defendant not the victim. In this case slating the alleged victims character is like saying "she's a slapper so it isn't rape" Ok, the same meathead brings charges against Jeff Hendrick for knocking him out outside a nightclub. Hendrick's defence is that he acted in self defence after being provoked. Hendrick's lawyer wants to present character witnesses who are prepared to testify that the meathead regularly starts fights outside nightclubs. It's establishing a pattern of behaviour. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.