Jump to content

Ched Evans


Batman

Recommended Posts

Please, I'm not going back and reading through a thread full of the useless diatribe you're peddling here. I will just repeat:

 

You think that because someone is a bit of a scumbag they deserve 2 and a half years in prison and the loss of a couple of million pounds?

 

We don't disagree that he seems like a scumbag, just that you think being a scumbag deserves prison time and an enormous fine when they've not committed a crime. No wonder the CPS is in complete disarray if that's the opinon of people who work/have worked there.

 

He served two and a half years in prison and lost his job at Sheffield United because he was found guilty of rape. When he was acquitted in the retrial he didn’t sue his club for wrongful dismissal did he? He didn’t get any recompense as part of his acquittal and I don’t see people queuing up to call for him to be financially recompensed for his time in prison by the general public. He is trying to blame his legal team for the fact that he was found guilty. That is basically what I take issue with. He still doesn’t understand that he put himself in that position by behaving in the way that he did. It was no one else’s fault. It would have been good to get some female perspective on this whole situation but given some of the responses on here I don’t blame them for steering clear. You talk about class UJ. Perhaps he should show some now, stop his supporters from hounding the other party, shut up and get on with his life. He is not a victim. No one has taken advantage of him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He served two and a half years in prison and lost his job at Sheffield United because he was found guilty of rape. When he was acquitted in the retrial he didn’t sue his club for wrongful dismissal did he? He didn’t get any recompense as part of his acquittal and I don’t see people queuing up to call for him to be financially recompensed for his time in prison by the general public. He is trying to blame his legal team for the fact that he was found guilty. That is basically what I take issue with. He still doesn’t understand that he put himself in that position by behaving in the way that he did. It was no one else’s fault. It would have been good to get some female perspective on this whole situation but given some of the responses on here I don’t blame them for steering clear. You talk about class UJ. Perhaps he should show some now, stop his supporters from hounding the other party, shut up and get on with his life. He is not a victim. No one has taken advantage of him.

 

I will repeat:

 

You think that because someone is a bit of a scumbag they deserve 2 and a half years in prison and the loss of a couple of million pounds?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's weird that soggy keeps talking like everyone is saying what a fantastic person Ched Evans is. No one has said that. I'm not sure there is much or any disagreement at all, he's an idiot and seemingly an unpleasant person. It's the being found guilty of rape and going to prison that was the problem for many. Being unpleasant afterwards isn't relevant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, he is trying to sue his legal team for malpractice. Do you have some evidence that they did a good job?

 

He took his time. Not sure what else they could do in the circumstances considering he admitted everything. He said he believed what happened was consensual which was the bottom line of their case. It isn't their fault that the new "witnesses" didnt appear until much, much later. Perhaps Team Ched should have got to work earlier? Still, if he wins his case you can come back and have a good gloat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will repeat:

 

You think that because someone is a bit of a scumbag they deserve 2 and a half years in prison and the loss of a couple of million pounds?

 

And I will repeat. He put himself in that position so instead of blaming his legal team perhaps he should think about his own responsibilities for his actions. If he doesn't go into that hotel room he doesnt leave himself open to what happened next. If you cant see that I really cant help you any more. Perhaps everyone should sue their legal teams if they dont get the verdict they want? Where do you think that would leave our justice system? If this was such a clear cut case why do you think that he was found guilty first time round and why do you think he was denied appeals? You might think that he has been hard done by. There are plenty of people who would disagree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And I will repeat. He put himself in that position so instead of blaming his legal team perhaps he should think about his own responsibilities for his actions. If he doesn't go into that hotel room he doesnt leave himself open to what happened next. If you cant see that I really cant help you any more. Perhaps everyone should sue their legal teams if they dont get the verdict they want? Where do you think that would leave our justice system? If this was such a clear cut case why do you think that he was found guilty first time round and why do you think he was denied appeals? You might think that he has been hard done by. There are plenty of people who would disagree.
So now the way that we judge if someone has been treated harshly with regards to guilt and innocence is if they are initially found guilty and then have appeals turned down? How is that a thing?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And I will repeat. He put himself in that position so instead of blaming his legal team perhaps he should think about his own responsibilities for his actions. If he doesn't go into that hotel room he doesnt leave himself open to what happened next. If you cant see that I really cant help you any more. Perhaps everyone should sue their legal teams if they dont get the verdict they want? Where do you think that would leave our justice system? If this was such a clear cut case why do you think that he was found guilty first time round and why do you think he was denied appeals? You might think that he has been hard done by. There are plenty of people who would disagree.

 

Yes or no, you think that should be the punishment for being found innocent after appeal? You also don't believe the Birmingham 6 should have got compensation then?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes or no, you think that should be the punishment for being found innocent after appeal? You also don't believe the Birmingham 6 should have got compensation then?
Well that Birmingham 6 can we be really. Sure they are innocent? I mean they were found guilty initially. And had appeals turned down, there's probably a whiff of guilt there.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes or no, you think that should be the punishment for being found innocent after appeal? You also don't believe the Birmingham 6 should have got compensation then?

 

I can’t be bothered, like you, to read back through your previous posts. Do you believe that OJ Simpson was innocent of killing his ex wife and her friend?

 

As for Evans, no one was tripping over themselves to give him compensation so he has taken it upon himself to sue his own legal team. Good luck with that Ched. If he fails do you think anyone else will be busting a gut to see that he gets

recompense? You seem to think that he has been hard done by. Perhaps you could start a whip round for him?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can’t be bothered, like you, to read back through your previous posts. Do you believe that OJ Simpson was innocent of killing his ex wife and her friend?

 

As for Evans, no one was tripping over themselves to give him compensation so he has taken it upon himself to sue his own legal team. Good luck with that Ched. If he fails do you think anyone else will be busting a gut to see that he gets

recompense? You seem to think that he has been hard done by. Perhaps you could start a whip round for him?

I think anyone who is punished for a crime that they are subsequently found not guilty of has been hard done by. It appears that you would have to agree with them politically or think they are a nice person before you think they are hard done by.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can’t be bothered, like you, to read back through your previous posts. Do you believe that OJ Simpson was innocent of killing his ex wife and her friend?

 

As for Evans, no one was tripping over themselves to give him compensation so he has taken it upon himself to sue his own legal team. Good luck with that Ched. If he fails do you think anyone else will be busting a gut to see that he gets

recompense? You seem to think that he has been hard done by. Perhaps you could start a whip round for him?

 

No, but I explained on another thread that the reason he was found innocent was due to the massive issues around the prosecution and the way it was all played out in public - hence why I think SPGs name should be kept out of the news. And of course, double jeopardy precluded him from being tried properly a second time.

 

You notice with the Ched Evans case - when it was being reported on in the papers every day, he's found guilty. When the appeal goes by fairly silently, he's found innocent.

 

So, if you can't be bothered to read back, I'll re-post, as it would be good to have an answer to the following 2 questions:

 

- Do you think that people who are a bit of a scumbag deserve 2 and a half years in prison and the loss of a couple of million pounds?

- Do you believe the Birmingham 6 should have got compensation?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My point is that there are people who walk free from court when they are guilty and there are people who get banged up who are innocent. It is my belief that both Evans and his buddy were guilty of sexually abusing someone who was in no fit state to give consent. So in answer to your question I believe that Evans got what he deserved.

 

As for the Birmingham 6, there are processes to recommence those who are found guilty of a crime and then exonerated. I don’t know if they went through a process or whether they received compensation. If they were entitled to it and got it, fair play. I don’t recall them suing their own legal team.

 

If Evans loses his case against his legal team do you believe that the public should recompense him for his loss of earnings?

 

I don’t really think that the Birmingham 6 are a good example. You need to find an example of someone who has been acquitted after serving their sentence where it just comes down to an interrogation by a jury of what happened.

 

Re press coverage, when Evans came to trial there was a great deal in the media from his side painting him as innocent. The second trial was very different in that the Evans team produced 2 witnesses who clearly swayed the jury. The jurors in the second case would also have been aware of the press during and after Evans initial conviction.

 

Jurors are asked to convict on the basis of probability. They might be conflicted but if they can’t be persuaded that the prosecution case isn’t probable in their minds they have to acquit. This leads to many guilty people walking free. Should they all get their loss of earnings paid back to them in every case? Clearly if someone had absolutely nothing to do with a crime and have had their lives hugely disrupted, there is a moral case for recompense. Where there is a fine line between guilty and not guilty perhaps not so much? In Evans case it would appear that he didn’t seek recompense through the courts for his loss of earnings. Instead he has gone down the route of suing his legal team. I can only assume he has been advised not to do the former as he had less chance of winning and if that is the case, it speaks a lot about how this case has been viewed in terms of his innocence. I didn’t see a massive outpouring of relief from the general public when he won his appeal, did you? Was anyone apart from the Evans camp screaming there had been a miscarriage of justice? Very different to the Birmingham 6 case.

 

He will win his case or he won’t. I won’t lose any sleep if he does as he has already demonstrated to the world what kind of man he is and if he is delusional enough to continue to believe he is a victim in all this then nothing will ever change in his own head no matter what the rest of us think.

 

Time to move on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since when has the justice system worked on the basis of a "fine line" between guilty and innocent? Who decides how fine the line is before he's judged to be innocent? He's either found guilty of a crime or is found innocent and should be treated accordingly because that's how the justice system works. What confused messed up thinking you have.

 

And you still haven't apologised for referring to those who had doubts about the guilty conviction as "rape apologists." shocking really. Time to move on indeed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He took his time. Not sure what else they could do in the circumstances considering he admitted everything. He said he believed what happened was consensual which was the bottom line of their case. It isn't their fault that the new "witnesses" didnt appear until much, much later. Perhaps Team Ched should have got to work earlier? Still, if he wins his case you can come back and have a good gloat.

 

So you are "not sure what they could do in the circumstances" but you're definitely sure they advised and represented him well. Ok then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reasonable doubt is probability. It isn’t beyond any doubt.

 

no it isn't

In the UK (criminal trials), defendants (on matter how much you like them) are presumed innocent until a prosecution proves 'beyond reasonable doubt' (with evidence) that said person is guilty.

Not prove that they 'probably' did the crime

Edited by Batman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

no it isn't

In the UK (criminal trials), defendants (on matter how much you like them) are presumed innocent until a prosecution proves 'beyond reasonable doubt' (with evidence) that said person is guilty.

Not prove that they 'probably' did the crime

 

Don’t get confused with how you consider the word probable and actually probability. 99.9999% can be a probability

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don’t get confused with how you consider the word probable and actually probability. 99.9999% can be a probability

 

it was viewed Ched Evans 'probably' raped her. That was wrong as it could not be proved beyond reasonable doubt that he did and is innocent. Otherwise he would be doing time.

 

 

In common law, two separate standards of proof are recognized- proof beyond reasonable doubt and proof based on the balance of probabilities. The former is he standard adopted while dealing with criminal cases while the latter is the standard in use in case of civil suits.

 

 

The standard used in criminal trial that is proof beyond reasonable doubt is viewed as requiring a high degree of satisfaction that the prosecution must, through the evidence and materials it presents, create in the mind of the Judge or the jurors. This high degree often leads to acquittal sometimes even when the authority trying the case feels that the guilt of the accused, based on the evidence, is more probable than his innocence.

 

 

A lower standard, that of balance (or preponderance) of probability is applied in civil litigation. Even though the standard of proof is lower in civil cases, it is no reflection on the seriousness of the allegations in question.

 

 

Pretty stunning what Soggy said further up, given that this area is in his field of expertise (apparently)

Edited by Batman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re press coverage, when Evans came to trial there was a great deal in the media from his side painting him as innocent. The second trial was very different in that the Evans team produced 2 witnesses who clearly swayed the jury. The jurors in the second case would also have been aware of the press during and after Evans initial conviction.

 

Are you ****ing kidding? You worked for the CPS and you don't know the basics of the court system.

 

The CoA does not have a jury (so **** knows how those 2 witnesses swayed them) - it's a court that looks at the rule of law applied to the case to see if the conviction is safe. There was obviously something applied within the initial case that made the conviction unsafe - and this is probably what Evans is suing his legal representation for, as they should have noticed this and brought it to the judges attention in the first case. He will have been told to sue them as he'd get more from a civil case from them then he'd get through the courts.

 

This is as far as I have got with your post, as you obviously have no idea what the flying **** you're talking about. I can't believe I've spent so long debating this with someone who is quite clearly has no legal background but feels he can lecture anyone else on it.

Edited by Unbelievable Jeff
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No they’re not you plank. It’s beyond reasonable doubt.

 

 

I hope nobody gets you on their jury. “ He probably did it, so guilty”.

 

If you decide that someone probably did something have you not made that decision based on beyond reasonable doubt? You also need to look at the way some judges advised their juries. There are some clear cut decisions but many not so clear cut. Do you really believe that juries always reached their verdicts based on absolute certainty?

 

 

The following quotes are from a current legal journal -

 

 

"In the unusual civil case, the law does not favour either party, expect that it slightly prefers the status quo. 'More probable than not' with the burden of getting over equipoise, satisfies society's need for stability and is relatively easy for the jury to understand."

 

 

"In the criminal case, the law tilts in favour of the defendants; it prefers that some guilty go free rather than that some innocents be convicted. The questions are (1) how high the minimum probability should be set and (2) how should the test be articulated."

 

 

Notice the use of the word "probability?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you decide that someone probably did something have you not made that decision based on beyond reasonable doubt? You also need to look at the way some judges advised their juries. There are some clear cut decisions but many not so clear cut. Do you really believe that juries always reached their verdicts based on absolute certainty?

 

 

The following quotes are from a current legal journal -

 

 

"In the unusual civil case, the law does not favour either party, expect that it slightly prefers the status quo. 'More probable than not' with the burden of getting over equipoise, satisfies society's need for stability and is relatively easy for the jury to understand."

 

 

"In the criminal case, the law tilts in favour of the defendants; it prefers that some guilty go free rather than that some innocents be convicted. The questions are (1) how high the minimum probability should be set and (2) how should the test be articulated."

 

 

Notice the use of the word "probability?"

 

"Beyond reasonable doubt" means that no other logical explanation can be derived from the facts except that the defendant committed the crime.

 

It is also referred to as a "moral certainty".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whatever happened to Soggy on this thread? Considering he had such strong opinions I'm surprised he hasn't come back to defend himself? Unless he really didn't care that much, he was just a contrarian trying to cause an argument but got caught out.
Interesting isn't it. Has an awful lot to say for himself initially but then goes very quiet when it's clear he's embarrassed himself. I'm sure he will be back soon recycling his tired talking points and pretending he hasn't run off with his tail between his legs.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's people arguing over semantics. Civil cases work "on the balance of probabilities" but beyond reasonable doubt is technically still a probability even if it isn't generally referred to as such.

 

This is correct its semantics, my wife was on a jury recently and they were advised by the judge that probability can be used to assess circumstantial evidence. A known burglar in possession of someone elses credit card and a stick with a notched end at 5.30am, two minutes away from a house that was broken into. No evidence of him at the scene, no witnesses and his story was he couldn't sleep, went for a walk and found the card. He was found guilty and a few of the jurers had to be persuaded by the judge's guidance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is correct its semantics, my wife was on a jury recently and they were advised by the judge that probability can be used to assess circumstantial evidence. A known burglar in possession of someone elses credit card and a stick with a notched end at 5.30am, two minutes away from a house that was broken into. No evidence of him at the scene, no witnesses and his story was he couldn't sleep, went for a walk and found the card. He was found guilty and a few of the jurers had to be persuaded by the judge's guidance.

 

Sounds like his defence ****ed up badly by letting his criminal past become part of the evidence. If the defence didn't offer any evidence as to the accused's good character then the previous burglary convictions shouldn't have been in evidence. If the jurors knew of them independently then they shouldn't have been on the jury. If the judge introduced the evidence unilaterally then he's ****ed up and the guy would definitely win an appeal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sounds like his defence ****ed up badly by letting his criminal past become part of the evidence. If the defence didn't offer any evidence as to the accused's good character then the previous burglary convictions shouldn't have been in evidence. If the jurors knew of them independently then they shouldn't have been on the jury. If the judge introduced the evidence unilaterally then he's ****ed up and the guy would definitely win an appeal.

 

Absolutely this. It's against the basic rules of law in a UK court. As soon as previous comes up, the case would have have been dismissed out of hand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The BBC published the results of a survey carried out by the End Of Violence Against Women coalition today and it makes worrying reading. A third of the people surveyed said that there had to be violence for it to be rape. More pertinent to this particular case, 6% (235 people out of 3922) said that it is not rape if the women is very drunk or asleep. Little wonder that it is still so hard to get rape convictions in court.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The BBC published the results of a survey carried out by the End Of Violence Against Women coalition today and it makes worrying reading. A third of the people surveyed said that there had to be violence for it to be rape. More pertinent to this particular case, 6% (235 people out of 3922) said that it is not rape if the women is very drunk or asleep. Little wonder that it is still so hard to get rape convictions in court.

 

Well it's shades of grey. It shouldn't be rape just because a woman is "very drunk". So if the question was, "if a woman js very drunk, can she consent?" the answer is clearly yes.

 

If she's so drunk she's comatose then that's a different matter. You can't escape your choices just because you're "very drunk".

 

I think what I'm saying is that this survey sounds like some flabby-minded waste of time. Which is what you would expect from an organisation with the words "women" and "coalition" in its name.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well it's shades of grey. It shouldn't be rape just because a woman is "very drunk". So if the question was, "if a woman js very drunk, can she consent?" the answer is clearly yes.

 

If she's so drunk she's comatose then that's a different matter. You can't escape your choices just because you're "very drunk".

 

I think what I'm saying is that this survey sounds like some flabby-minded waste of time. Which is what you would expect from an organisation with the words "women" and "coalition" in its name.

Absolutely. It's the kind of survey that sounds very flawed but also the type of thing that would be latched onto by someone who has a bit of a vague idea about consent but who also wants to deflect about their failings from earlier in the thread.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The BBC published the results of a survey carried out by the End Of Violence Against Women coalition today and it makes worrying reading. A third of the people surveyed said that there had to be violence for it to be rape. More pertinent to this particular case, 6% (235 people out of 3922) said that it is not rape if the women is very drunk or asleep. Little wonder that it is still so hard to get rape convictions in court.

 

I would say it's probably hard to convictions in court because people who "work" for the CPS don't know what they're doing and decide to prosecute the wrong cases.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sounds like his defence ****ed up badly by letting his criminal past become part of the evidence. If the defence didn't offer any evidence as to the accused's good character then the previous burglary convictions shouldn't have been in evidence. If the jurors knew of them independently then they shouldn't have been on the jury. If the judge introduced the evidence unilaterally then he's ****ed up and the guy would definitely win an appeal.

 

The defence have got nothing to do with it. If the CPS think that the defendant has the kind of "previous" that will swing the balance of probabilities in their favour they can apply to the court for what is called a Bad Character application. The judge will make the call about whether or not the defendant's previous convictions will be allowed as part of the prosecution case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well it's shades of grey. It shouldn't be rape just because a woman is "very drunk". So if the question was, "if a woman js very drunk, can she consent?" the answer is clearly yes.

 

If she's so drunk she's comatose then that's a different matter. You can't escape your choices just because you're "very drunk".

 

I think what I'm saying is that this survey sounds like some flabby-minded waste of time. Which is what you would expect from an organisation with the words "women" and "coalition" in its name.

 

So have you ever been so drunk that you have no recollection of what you did the previous night? You sound like you are in the 6% and your responses are what you would expect from someone who think that women are fair game whatever the circumstances (apart from being totally unconscious). The whole point is that you don't make rational choices when you are "very drunk." You are probably not even aware of what "choices" you have made.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So have you ever been so drunk that you have no recollection of what you did the previous night? You sound like you are in the 6% and your responses are what you would expect from someone who think that women are fair game whatever the circumstances (apart from being totally unconscious). The whole point is that you don't make rational choices when you are "very drunk." You are probably not even aware of what "choices" you have made.

 

Are you really just carrying on giving your back of a fag packet law lectures to people ignoring the fact that you seem to know very little about the subject? You haven't even broached the poor application of your "law" earlier in this thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So have you ever been so drunk that you have no recollection of what you did the previous night? You sound like you are in the 6% and your responses are what you would expect from someone who think that women are fair game whatever the circumstances (apart from being totally unconscious). The whole point is that you don't make rational choices when you are "very drunk." You are probably not even aware of what "choices" you have made.

 

Yes, of course I've been that drunk. And sometimes I've acted like an idiot. But I didn't abrogate my moral agency as a result.

 

Look, I'm not defending predatory behaviour and clearly there doesn't have to be violence (beyond the act itself) for there to be a sexual assault but I really think the general public is less tolerant of the notion that you somehow automatically lose all powers of consent if you're really, really, really drunk.

Edited by benjii
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

View Terms of service (Terms of Use) and Privacy Policy (Privacy Policy) and Forum Guidelines ({Guidelines})