Ched Evans

He was bang out of order behaving as he did but the punishment was OTT kenny.

Well the police had no forensic evidence to link Ched or his mate to the sexual act, she didn't complain of rape,or remember anything, and the only way the police knew that sexual activity had taken place was that the 2 men told them. Crazy.

If he was from overseas he would not have been jailed

People on here wanted the breaking wheel for him

Was one of the most unseemly threads ever witnessed on here, that one. The chit-chat lynchmob in full effect.

He was destined for the premier league too.

any truth in the rumour ched will be calling jess as a character witness

cardiff jury likely to be far different to last jury

If he is found guilty again, will Rochdale cancel his contract, because of outside pressure?

The injustice is I feel is if he is convicted of rape he can never leave this country, I do not think that law is justice,

it is a life time punishment.

I never thought he was guilty of rape anyway, he would have had no idea the female would have forgotten it in the morning,

so he would not have raped her.

I hope he is cleared.

rapists better hurry up and appeal to european court of human rights before
its too late

we dont want other countries rapists coming to uk, why should we expect
other countries to accept ours ?



evans found new evidence, lets hope he gets a fair hearing and a verdict either way
as jury see fit. another retrial is probably last thing they all want.

we dont want other countries rapists coming to uk, why should we expect
other countries to accept ours ?

Countries make their own decisions. A rapists police record should be made available if asked.

The country then chooses if they want to accept that person or not, that to me is justice.

If he is found guilty again, will Rochdale cancel his contract, because of outside pressure?

I can guarantee that will not happen

Rochdale a whole new club eg

People like Jessica Ennis-Hill didn't help when he was trying to rebuild his career.

Indeed crags.

I echo Kenny's comments.
I can't remember is too easy a get out.

Generally, the prosecutor bears the burden of proof and is required to prove their version of events to this standard. This means that the proposition being presented by the prosecution must be proven to the extent that there could be no "reasonable doubt" in the mind of a "reasonable person" that the defendant is guilty. There can still be a doubt, but only to the extent that it would not affect a reasonable person's belief regarding whether or not the defendant is guilty.

How can there not be a 'reasonable doubt' in the mind of a  jurist?

The 'victim' did not report the 'rape'.

The 'victim' says she does not remember what happened.

The 'victim' was able to walk through the doors of the hotel unaided.  Going to the bedroom of men she had just met.

The 'victim' had sex with the first man who was cleared of rape.  So she was not drunk then, according to the jury, but was drunk minutes later?

I could go on, but you get the drift.  This farce says everything about where england and great britain are headed.  Prosecutions for just about anything, just so the police can justify their jobs.  You would think that when the first prosecution was quashed that the prosecution service would let the matter drop, but no, they must have their pound of flesh.

How can there not be a 'reasonable doubt' in the mind of a  jurist?

they try not to use this phrase now

The 'victim' did not report the 'rape'.

had she done so it would have meant she remembered .....

The 'victim' says she does not remember what happened.

indeed

The 'victim' was able to walk through the doors of the hotel unaided.  Going to the bedroom of men she had just met.

no, she went with one man

The 'victim' had sex with the first man who was cleared of rape.  So she was not drunk then, according to the jury, but was drunk minutes later?

no, she did not consent, but jury found he had resonable grounds to think she had. and jury found second man did not have reasonable grounds
to think she had consented.



there is new evidence, so the trial should take its own course and no replay
the same arguments that some people seem unable to grasp.

If its proved she was too intoxiicated to give consent , then any subsequent intercourse would be classed as rape - as she didn't give permission.

....unless her actions could be reasonably interpreted as giving consent

as this is a defence in law

So the drunk persons word trumps the accused Facts.

the first guy is not on trial , so this may not be brought up ?

unless she said something that led evans to think she had consented

i do not think he produced any evidence in first trial to use that as a defence ?



i think his defence will be along other lines , that is, the new evidence he has.

we will have to wait to see what this is

Amazing how many long term single saddos have all the answers to a trial they were not involved in.

Lets just dispense the jury and let a fervent animal activist, a bloke who hates women because one ditched him and a poster who seems very angry with the world decide.

A magnificent collection of sh1t chatters to decide the outcome; well rounded, knowledgeable and visionaries.

'long term single saddos'

how very dare you!

How any 'reasonable' person could have absolutely no doubt at all about the conviction of ched evans when the victim herself cannot remember what happened and did not complain about it in the first place beggars belief.  She only went to the police about a missing handbag, not about any rape.

Great post charwell

Evening Zen

You're certainly taking a male point of view there, annie

No it's not a great post. It's a post of a fkin idiot.Charwell aka Derek McGovern who tips up sihte football tips in the Daily Mirror is an absolute ****.

be disapointed (extra s) if charwell was mcgovern

actually i'll have a p Bob

Well I found that out from the McGovern thread on football. Not forced to be true of course, but both charwell and Mcgovern are FCC so possible. Here's his recent "tips"


Lost 12 of his last 13 bets so that might be enough to tip anyone over the edge, although I'm sure his wallet is fat enough to cushion any fall given the gigs he gets including the podcast he does with hills which I just had a listen too.

It was recorded on Friday 30th September incidentally his last mirror bet, which you can listen to here (https://audioboom.com/boos/5111983-the-punt-friday-30-september?t=0) where they were previewing the weekends games as they do, said at the end they'll be back this friday so maybe it's just a weeks holidayGrin

He gave 10 tips for the last weekend bets which were as follows, although wont be included in any table, just for interests sake.

Everton v PALACE @ 4/1 - Lost 1 point - ("I will be having a serious bet on that") - 9.58
Swansea +1 @ 7/4 - Lost 1 point.
Stoke + 2 - Gave no odds on this for reason, will say it was Evens - Won 1 point
City 7/5 - Lost 1 point
Burnley v Arsenal BTTS NO @ 8/11 - Won 0.73 points (having a small dabble)
Hull @ 6/1 - Lost 1 point
Sunderland - West Brom 0-0 @ 15/2 - (This was the NAP)
West Ham v MIDDLESBROUGH @ 2/1 - Lost 1 point - (This is a Gimme)
Bournemouth v Watford - BTTS yes @ 7/10 - Won 0.7 points
Leicester v Southampton - Draw @ 7/4 - Won 1.75 points

= Lost 1.82 points.

That's interesting, kenny. I put Derek McGovern straight about him saying Shoe-in instead of Shoo-in in his column in the Mirror a few years ago. We exchanged a couple of Emails and I asked him what his user name on Betfair was but he wouldn't say.

It was my fellow Bradfordian Rob The Bantam who came out with it, crags. See the MCgovern thread on footy.

nEVER DID LIKE THE SCOUSE GIT.

He's got a good sense of humour, TBF.

I am not taking a 'male' point of view, crags.  I am taking the view of an intelligent, ordinary person who is dismayed at the way people are being prosecuted, convicted,  sent to prison and their lives destroyed under the flimsiest of 'evidence'.

OK

a bloke who hates women because one ditched him
That must be me

How is a man supposed to know if a women is too drunk to give consent????????????????????

If women claim they can make decisions the same as men, then they can take responsibility for their own actions.

nice to see u back annie

You mean they allow women to post on here...

I thought I was safe

Good post annie, spot on.

crags, I suppose you find his fellow scouse git ex striker on talksport funny as well.Forgotten his name.

mitchell downie

Geordie, bearded,centre forward, banned for animal cruelty when he was training horses.

Mitchell's moved on, Capt.

Date: 10:00 Sat 08 Oct 2016 
Team: The Mitchell Downies

Tranmere 1 -  0 Wrexham
Peterborough 1 -  1 Bury
Bristol Rovers 1 -  0 Fleetwood
Rochdale 1 -  1 Southend
Scunthorpe 1 -  1 Northampton
Sheff Utd 1 -  0 Walsall
Mansfield 1 -  1 Notts County
Blackpool 1 -  1 Cambridge
Hartlepool 1 -  1 Crawley
Luton 1 -  1 Crewe

Thanks, Capt F and kenny

ebulGery,  I promise to be gentle

still a scouser canny

nice 1 annie keep dancing/posting

Night ALL EVEN CRAGS

Sigh

Nice to hear annie

We have women running countries, making important decisions that affect us all

Yet when it comes to deciding on sex the decision is still put on the man.

If a women says no, she means no, so men accept that

But if a women says yes men have to decide whether she really means yes or she means no

I think women put a lot on men nowadays, too much!

The women got herself drunk...so what happened was her own fault in my opinion!

Not according to Facts BG

The drunk people are always in the right in Facts world

The stupid law thinks otherwise, sadly, E.

Anyway bed, ptd.

Not saying women deserve to be raped, if they're drunk ( or tipsy in her case) but from all the evidence I've read of this case there was no rape.

I agree Kenny women should not be raped even if they are drunk.

But when a woman consents it is hard to see where the rape comes in.

A lot of people have sex after alcohol.

On the red button two Sparta Prague players in trouble, one said 'women belong at the stove',
another one tweeted 'to the stove'

Their punishment is to train with the women's team
It is getting worse by the day for men.......

my smilie should have been

Facts 04 Oct 16 23:24 
If its proved she was too intoxiicated to give consent , then any subsequent intercourse would be classed as rape - as she didn't give permission.


absolutely spot on Facts.


.....the Court of Appeal explored the issue of capacity and consent, stating that, if, through drink, or for any other reason, a complainant had temporarily lost her capacity to choose whether to have sexual intercourse, she was not consenting, and subject to the defendant's state of mind, if intercourse took place, that would be rape. However, where a complainant had voluntarily consumed substantial quantities of alcohol, but nevertheless remained capable of choosing whether to have intercourse, and agreed to do so, that would not be rape.

The jury needs to be assess whether she was capable of providing consent. But most importantly, they need to do so beyond reasonable doubt, which is normally given as 95% certainty.

that means the jury needs to make it 20-1 or larger that she wasn't so drunk she could give consent.

and that's why Evans should never have been convicted.

the whole point about this trial is that the jury got it wrong, but you can have a retrial because juries can't make decent probabilistic estimates.

yes evans is a filthy sleazebag, yes there is a chance that she was too drunk to give consent, but 95%? Not one of you on here would be betting on those odds. You'd all be laying the sh1t out of it. Bookies would be palping it.

and of course the verdict is only made to look more idiotic by finding Clayton McDonald not guilty.

the jury is claiming to have knowledge of the precise levels of her intoxication over a 30 minute period and that within that period the threshold for consent was crossed.

no, the jury decided her actions were enough to lead him to believe she was consenting.
but as evans turned up without her invite he could not reasonably have thought she was consenting
as the text from his mate did not imply consent....


that is all quashed now anyway, and the new trial will show new evidence

a new jury will decide

but as evans turned up without her invite he could not reasonably have thought she was consenting

If she says yes...what else do you want?

he did not claim that she said yes as far i have have seen ?

had she done so he would surely have made that claim ?



i think the first jury had a difficult decision and either
guilty or not guilty were possible verdicts based on full evidence
at the time

the new evidence may change the verdict, but a new jury may well
have come to a different verdict anyway.

there are folk that dont seem to want to let the case be judged on the law

some folk see a drunken girl and think consent, some do not,

if a man woke up after a night on the drink and found his tipsy friend
had taken advantage of his state the issue of consent may be taken somewhat
differently.

no, the jury decided her actions were enough to lead him to believe she was consenting.
but as evans turned up without her invite he could not reasonably have thought she was consenting
as the text from his mate did not imply consent....

those points don't invalidate mine: they are secondary and assume the capacity to provide consent .

he did not claim that she said yes as far i have have seen ?

errr. yes he did.

thats correct dstyle

but its a defence against rape

only if the victim is considered capable of providing consent.

the whole point is that Evans and McDonald both claimed she verbally consented to have sex with both of them.

the whole point is that Evans and McDonald both claimed she verbally consented to have sex with both of them.

and I believe them, so no rape

I do not think being drunk takes away our ability to make decisions

or that anything happened this women did not want

If the women regretted it, or in this case did not remember in the morning, that does not make it raps

if a man woke up after a night on the drink and found his tipsy friend
had taken advantage of his state the issue of consent may be taken somewhat
differently.

That would not be possible with me or indeed most men
I would have to be unconscious drunk for that to happen......this women was not unconscious.
The Porter heard sounds of mutual sex form the room.

unconscious drunk would be rape of course

How any 'reasonable' person could have absolutely no doubt at all about the conviction of ched evans when the victim herself cannot remember what happened and did not complain about it in the first place beggars belief.  She only went to the police about a missing handbag, not about any rape.

I would like to wait and see what happens if there is another trial but your point highlighted in bold is utter nonsense and irrelevant and if it was the case would be an open goal for date rapists. I'm not saying that is what happened in this case but to suggest that you can't comprehend why a jury would find beyond reasonable doubt because a person can't remember and didn't make the complaint themselves is utter nonsense.

But most importantly, they need to do so beyond reasonable doubt, which is normally given as 95% certainty.

Is it?  I thought it was around 99%, with case law indicating that a jury must be 'virtually certain'.

Reasonable doubt isn't a defence.  It's the standard of proof required for a successful prosecution.

True, Rob, but usually it means the same thing doesn't it?

Reasonable doubt isn't a defence Annie and the law does not state that. Beyond reasonable doubt is the balance of proof required in a criminal case for someone to be convicted.

If you think that in this particular case that there was reasonable doubt then that is fair enough. To suggest though that someone can't find beyond reasonable doubt when the victim herself cannot remember what happened and did not complain about it in the first place beggars belief is nonsense.

It's the standard of proof. 

The balance of probability is the standard of proof in civil cases.

True, Rob, but usually it means the same thing doesn't it?

No.  You'll be acquitted if it can't be proven beyond reasonable doubt that you are guilty, but it's not a defence.