Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Errol

CHED EVANS NOT GUILTY

Recommended Posts

NOT GUILTY.

They ruined his life over an entirely spurious accusation.

Jesus Christ. I hope he claims all the lost earnings in compensation. He was in line to go to the Premier league - and should be looking for 10 million (minimum) or so to cover his losses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes he should also claim against those high profile figures who prevented him from resuming his playing career like Jessica Ennis Hill threatening to withdraw her name from the stand at the football club that signed him, leading to the offer being dropped.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Mrs XYY still thinks it's Chet Atkins - she'll be chuffed to bits when I tell her she can start buying his records again...

 

 

XYY

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, SarahBell said:

I just read this. 
Wonder what happens to his career now.

A fortnight of sell-out performances at the Grand Ole Opry according to Mrs XYY...

 

XYY

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Errol said:

Jessica Ennis should be forced to apologise in public. Disgraceful behaviour on her part. 

Yeah I remember that.  She made a big deal of him signing for Sheff Utd and wanted her name removed from a stand.  It would be so good if somehow events conspire so that Ched Evans could turn down an event that Jessica Ennis is associated with in the future.  Shame on her.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Wahoo said:

These false accusations are a nightmare.......for blokes.

there were no false allegations from the victim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nope just the cps. That's fine then? To be fair bloo loo has been consistent in defending the rights of victims in such cases. For that I applaud them. However, the idea that past behaviour has no relevance to this case is mental. Colloquially this woman is a slapper. Does that mean she can't be raped? Of course not. Does it make it much much less likely she was. Absolutely it does. Ched Evans is an infidelious idiot. A rapist though? Not likely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The guy's an idiot..  but good for him.

Ridiculous that the case was ever brought..   the British legal system made the lives of two innocent people a complete misery,  neither of whom ever wanted or asked for any of it in the first place.

All because the home secretary wanted to see more men prosecuted.   silly *****.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This woman's past was absolutely relevant, which was why it was admitted.

She had a history of having sex and then waking up the next day and saying she couldn't remember anything. This was a vital bit of evidence. The prosecution case was essentially built on the idea that because she couldn't remember anything she couldn't have given consent (which in any event is quite obviously not the case anyway).

The new evidence and the defence destroyed the prosecution case and the jury quite rightly acquitted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, mentalfloss said:

Nope just the cps. That's fine then? To be fair bloo loo has been consistent in defending the rights of victims in such cases. For that I applaud them. However, the idea that past behaviour has no relevance to this case is mental. Colloquially this woman is a slapper. Does that mean she can't be raped? Of course not. Does it make it much much less likely she was. Absolutely it does. Ched Evans is an infidelious idiot. A rapist though? Not likely.

No -- that absolutely isn't the nature of the evidence.  This statement walks right into the trap set by all those people who are now saying that this sets rape law back 20 years.  Same with arguments like 'she'd had sex with a guy 2 weeks after -- if she'd really been raped then she'd not have done that' -- The sexual morals of, or the ability of a person to get over an assault, doesn't change the legal nature of the assault taking place.

But...

1 hour ago, Errol said:

This woman's past was absolutely relevant, which was why it was admitted.

She had a history of having sex and then waking up the next day and saying she couldn't remember anything. This was a vital bit of evidence. The prosecution case was essentially built on the idea that because she couldn't remember anything she couldn't have given consent (which in any event is quite obviously not the case anyway).

The new evidence and the defence destroyed the prosecution case and the jury quite rightly acquitted.

This is more like it.  The prosecution had made a case of 'memory loss == being semi-conscious at the time of the supposed offence'.  The additional evidence throws that out - says that she might have seemed fine (and been fine) at the time (albeit a bit drunk), and still had memory loss the next day.

But the main part of the new evidence is that it supports statements made by Evans about the incident -- her supposed words of encouragement, sexual positions, etc.  If what he said had really occurred then it throws out the prosecution's case, and so they'd said his statement of what had happened couldn't be relied upon (as he might have made it up).  Then two guys independently come along with descriptions of pretty much the same sexual experience with the girl - same positions, same words from her.  This suggests that his statement of events is true, and thus he could reasonably have thought that he had consent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The BBC as ever has acted disgracefully over this... Rounding up all the usual suspects and leading the charge against him so that he never played football again. In cahoots with some warped feminist agenda giving it wall-to-wall coverage. Even now the angle they're taking is truly shocking: no apology, but asking if it'll 'stop other people from coming forward to report rape'. No mention of the fact the lady in question was plastered and by any definition an unreliable witness.

A truly evil organisation if ever there was one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, spunko2010 said:

The BBC as ever has acted disgracefully over this... Rounding up all the usual suspects and leading the charge against him so that he never played football again. In cahoots with some warped feminist agenda giving it wall-to-wall coverage. Even now the angle they're taking is truly shocking: no apology, but asking if it'll 'stop other people from coming forward to report rape'. 

That's the defining feminist response to proven false accusations of rape: "Think how this will affect genuine victims of rape". The idea of a man as victim is literally inconceivable to them.

Look this herd of sheep over at mumsnet responding to the verdict with "I believe her". Believe what? The "victim" said in court that she couldn't remember *anything* that happened and made no claim of rape.

http://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/_chat/2756026-To-the-girl-who-was-raped-I-believe-you

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   54 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.