Jump to content

Ched Evans


Batman

Recommended Posts

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.

 

Putting a different spin on it, should we let drunk drivers off who are "very drunk" on the basis that they are 'probably' not even aware of the choices they have made?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Putting a different spin on it, should we let drunk drivers off who are "very drunk" on the basis that they are 'probably' not even aware of the choices they have made?

 

Of course we shouldn’t. As you well know it is an offence to get behind the wheel of a car if you are drunk. It is also rape if you have Dec with a woman who is too drunk to give consent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course we shouldn’t. As you well know it is an offence to get behind the wheel of a car if you are drunk. It is also rape if you have Dec with a woman who is too drunk to give consent.

 

Or if you Dec a man who's too drunk. Bit paternalistic there, bro.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course we shouldn’t. As you well know it is an offence to get behind the wheel of a car if you are drunk. It is also rape if you have Dec with a woman who is too drunk to give consent.

 

Ah, I see, you can only be too drunk that you aren't even aware of the choices you make if you are a victim, but not if you are the perpetrator of an offence!

 

Would this be an opportune moment to point out that being 'too drunk to give consent' would also potentially fall foul of the offence of being drunk and disorderly?

 

That really could get complicated as the victim could also be the perpetrator! Schrodinger would have a field day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...

Evans has now been paid 800k in an out of court settlement with his trail lawyers over their negligent defence. Interestingly, this has a Saints link, with former winger Stuart Ripley of law firm Brabners, being one of the two men who represented him.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

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.
Indeed he can! Looks like even more egg on your face over this matter. New stuff just keeps popping up every few months to make you look even more foolish. Oh dear oh dear oh dear... Maybe you'll reconsider rushing to condemnation and calling those with legitimate concerns "rape apologists" the next time something like this happens simply because the accused person is a white man? Or knowing you probably not. Edited by hypochondriac
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Evans camp must be delighted. They have got the money they paid out for witnesses with “new evidence” with interest.

 

They are probably delighted because he has been found innocent and compenasted in the process

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just a normal night out in your book though isn’t it Batman. You must be delighted too.

 

I don't care either way. But the justice system has not only found him innocent but has seen fit to ensure he is significantly compensated. Are you not happy justice has been carried out?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Evans camp must be delighted. They have got the money they paid out for witnesses with “new evidence” with interest.
Thank goodness they were able get the courts to consider new evidence that meant that he was found not guilty of the crime. I'm sure the courts are also satisfied considering they are all about the pursuit of justice and this shows that his original conviction was clearly unjust. I assume you will also have peace of mind to know that the courts are willing to overturn convictions if additional evidence comes to light that casts doubt on the original conviction. Thank goodness we have a court system that operates this way regardless of race, gender etc.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Evans has now been paid 800k in an out of court settlement with his trail lawyers over their negligent defence. Interestingly, this has a Saints link, with former winger Stuart Ripley of law firm Brabners, being one of the two men who represented him.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

yep...

 

Is this now Saints related due to involving a former player?

 

(bonus points to anyone that can work out who it is)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No idea who this person is.

 

Are you happy that justice has been delivered for Ched?

 

Yes or No?

He is a cricketer who has just been convicted of rape.

 

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/breaking-cricketer-alex-hepburn-found-14288444.amp

 

Prosecutors alleged Hepburn began to rape the woman while she was asleep after getting into her bed, where she had earlier had consensual sex with his then team-mate Joe Clarke.

 

 

Sent from my moto g(6) using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He is a cricketer who has just been convicted of rape.

 

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/breaking-cricketer-alex-hepburn-found-14288444.amp

 

Prosecutors alleged Hepburn began to rape the woman while she was asleep after getting into her bed, where she had earlier had consensual sex with his then team-mate Joe Clarke.

 

 

Sent from my moto g(6) using Tapatalk

 

I hope the justice system finds the correct verdict.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder what Batman’s thoughts are on the Alex Hepburn case. Wrongly convicted? Just lads having a bit of fun?

 

If he’s been found guilty then we can only assume he is, just like we should assume the Evans verdict is correct. Only the people in the court room have all the facts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If he’s been found guilty then we can only assume he is, just like we should assume the Evans verdict is correct. Only the people in the court room have all the facts.
We should but when people rightly thought Ched would have a good chance with an appeal, soggy was screaming at them calling anyone who thought that a rape apologist.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No idea who this person is.

 

Are you happy that justice has been delivered for Ched?

 

Yes or No?

 

Unlike you not to be on top of a story like this. As for Evans, I am happy that he has been exposed for the low life he is. I am not happy that people with money can buy “justice.” I am also happy that the whole debate about consensual sex is out there, even if people like you still think it is perfectly ok to have sex with someone who is completely out of it on drink or drugs and who you have just found on the streets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unlike you not to be on top of a story like this. As for Evans, I am happy that he has been exposed for the low life he is. I am not happy that people with money can buy “justice.” I am also happy that the whole debate about consensual sex is out there, even if people like you still think it is perfectly ok to have sex with someone who is completely out of it on drink or drugs and who you have just found on the streets.

 

are you happy justice has been served?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Was it served with OJ Simpson? I have told you what I think several times. Sadly you still seem to believe that his behaviour was totally acceptable.

 

just a yes or no will do mate. ffs!

Where have I ever said his behaviour was acceptable?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unlike you not to be on top of a story like this. As for Evans, I am happy that he has been exposed for the low life he is. I am not happy that people with money can buy “justice.” I am also happy that the whole debate about consensual sex is out there, even if people like you still think it is perfectly ok to have sex with someone who is completely out of it on drink or drugs and who you have just found on the streets.

 

How exactly has he bought justice?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How exactly has he bought justice?
In soggy's mind he's bought justice because he's a high profile white straight male who acted very poorly with a woman. Despite the fact he's been found not guilty of the crime, he's still somehow guilty in soggy's mind because of who he is. We might as well apply that logic to every criminal case and just not bother with court cases and the concept of guilt and innocence. Let's just let soggy decide who is guilty even if they are found not guilty in court.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Soggy seems to have no compassion for the men falsely accused of this horrendous crime.

 

I know of a young man who has now been on police bail for 5 months accused of a rape from 2 years ago. I know for a fact that plod have police statements (my daughter made one of them) advising that the bird has admitted to school friends that she consented and was annoyed that he subsequently dumped her. The accuser has even told her parents that she “regrets” it’s gone this far, yet the young lad still has it hanging over him as he prepares for his A levels. Evidently plod are still looking into it, despite the bird more or less admitting she lied, because they don’t want to be accused of not investigating it properly. All well and good, but the poor guy is suffering.

 

There should be severe punishments for birds who try to ruin men’s lives in this way. Evans had his career ruined and I’m sure there’s countless others. Problem is people like soggy take believing the worst in white men as the default position.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This “bird” did not bring this case against Evans nor did she accuse him of rape. If you had bothered to follow it you will know that it was the CPS who decided to prosecute based on her inability to consent. Before you get all sentimental about Evans being a victim here, go back and acquaint yourself with what he did. If you are still ok with it you are no better than Batman who clearly thinks that incapacitated women are fair game. Given that you still call women “birds” your misogynistic comments come as no surprise.

 

Give this some thought. He was found guilty of rape in the first trial. He was found innocent in the retrial after two witnesses came forward when £50k was offered. Where were these two witnesses in the first trial? Funny that they suddenly felt compelled to do the right thing when there was money on the table. There evidence also had nothing to do with Evans behaviour that night, which some of you think was apparently ok. The prosecution believe Evans to be guilty of rape still, but if you think that he did nothing wrong, that is your issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This “bird” did not bring this case against Evans nor did she accuse him of rape. If you had bothered to follow it you will know that it was the CPS who decided to prosecute based on her inability to consent. Before you get all sentimental about Evans being a victim here, go back and acquaint yourself with what he did. If you are still ok with it you are no better than Batman who clearly thinks that incapacitated women are fair game. Given that you still call women “birds” your misogynistic comments come as no surprise.

 

Give this some thought. He was found guilty of rape in the first trial. He was found innocent in the retrial after two witnesses came forward when £50k was offered. Where were these two witnesses in the first trial? Funny that they suddenly felt compelled to do the right thing when there was money on the table. There evidence also had nothing to do with Evans behaviour that night, which some of you think was apparently ok. The prosecution believe Evans to be guilty of rape still, but if you think that he did nothing wrong, that is your issue.

 

Pony.

 

The jury decided the prosecution couldn’t prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she was incapable of consent. Unfortunately, you keep claiming that she wasn’t, you seem to think your opinion in more valid than 12 ordinary citizens.

 

As for the witnesses. The judge in the first trial ruled that her past sexual history was inadmissible. The judge at the second trial used a rarely used exceptional reason ruling to allow it. The witness’ testified that they’d had a threesome with her days before Evans. Testified that the language she used to encourage them and the sex acts she asked them to indulge in, were exactly as Evans and his mate had said. There was also evidence that she’d had another threesome days after the Evans incident as well.

 

This is the BBC correspondent’s take on it.

 

“In rape trials, defence lawyers are banned from cross-examining an alleged victim about their sexual behaviour or history to protect them from humiliating treatment.

But there can be exceptional reasons to ditch that rule in the interests of a fair trial. The Court of Appeal said Mr Evans's case was one of those very rare exceptions.

It said that two other men who had sex with the woman had described their encounters with her in highly specific terms that were virtually indistinguishable from Mr Evans's own account of what had happened.

One of the encounters occurred days before the alleged rape - and the other in the days that followed.

On each occasion the woman had been drinking heavily and the sex occurred in a very specific way - including the words she used to encourage her partner.

Each time she woke up saying she had no memory of what had happened.

Lady Justice Hallett, one of the country's top judges, said that these events were so similar to what Mr Evans had described that a jury had to hear about them before deciding whether the woman had been incapable of giving her consent.”

 

She obviously likes men & enjoys threesomes, there’s nothing wrong with that. In fact I wish more chicks were like it. However, she’s not the victim here, Evans is.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Edited by Lord Duckhunter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This “bird” did not bring this case against Evans nor did she accuse him of rape. If you had bothered to follow it you will know that it was the CPS who decided to prosecute based on her inability to consent. Before you get all sentimental about Evans being a victim here, go back and acquaint yourself with what he did. If you are still ok with it you are no better than Batman who clearly thinks that incapacitated women are fair game. Given that you still call women “birds” your misogynistic comments come as no surprise.

 

Give this some thought. He was found guilty of rape in the first trial. He was found innocent in the retrial after two witnesses came forward when £50k was offered. Where were these two witnesses in the first trial? Funny that they suddenly felt compelled to do the right thing when there was money on the table. There evidence also had nothing to do with Evans behaviour that night, which some of you think was apparently ok. The prosecution believe Evans to be guilty of rape still, but if you think that he did nothing wrong, that is your issue.

 

No justice system is perfect but a jury of 7 women and 5 men took just 3 hours to find him not guilty, seems pretty open and shut to me.

 

They sat through the whole trial, you can’t just read some stuff on the internet and make a judgement, especially on cases like these which are very hard to prove.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No justice system is perfect but a jury of 7 women and 5 men took just 3 hours to find him not guilty, seems pretty open and shut to me.

 

They sat through the whole trial, you can’t just read some stuff on the internet and make a judgement, especially on cases like these which are very hard to prove.

 

They found him not guilty thanks to new “evidence” provided after £50,000 was offered by the Evans camp for such evidence.

 

As for going out and supposedly having a good time, great. Especially if you have no recollection of it. She said she felt that her drink has been spiked. Fair game for predatory males so that’s ok then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They found him not guilty thanks to new “evidence” provided after £50,000 was offered by the Evans camp for such evidence.

 

As for going out and supposedly having a good time, great. Especially if you have no recollection of it. She said she felt that her drink has been spiked. Fair game for predatory males so that’s ok then.

 

if the evidence was tainted, it would not have been credible.

surely?

 

how come earlier in the thread, you were a huge champion of the the courts/justice system on this case...not anymore it seems, sadly

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They found him not guilty thanks to new “evidence” provided after £50,000 was offered by the Evans camp for such evidence.

 

As for going out and supposedly having a good time, great. Especially if you have no recollection of it. She said she felt that her drink has been spiked. Fair game for predatory males so that’s ok then.

 

It was her third threesome in a few days. Was her drink spiked every time. You’re defending some dirty chick just because a white male was involved. She wasn’t some innocent that was taken advantage of. A FEMALE judge ruled that her sexual past was relevant in this case, it’s clear why that was.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They found him not guilty thanks to new “evidence” provided after £50,000 was offered by the Evans camp for such evidence.

 

As for going out and supposedly having a good time, great. Especially if you have no recollection of it. She said she felt that her drink has been spiked. Fair game for predatory males so that’s ok then.

 

What, spiked every one of these nights? I would assume the girl would have been cross-examined as part of the new evidence - IE. Did you have sex with these men on Friday, these men on Sunday, and did you have sex with Ched and his mate in between?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They found him not guilty thanks to new “evidence” provided after £50,000 was offered by the Evans camp for such evidence.

 

As for going out and supposedly having a good time, great. Especially if you have no recollection of it. She said she felt that her drink has been spiked. Fair game for predatory males so that’s ok then.

Hold on are you suggesting that new evidence was falsified? That's a very serious accusation that I assume you have a lot of proof for?

 

Questioning the original verdict based on the facts of the case does not equal "supporting" Ched Evan's actions. It is possible to be critical of the man's actions whilst being glad that justice seems to have been served and that he has been found innocent of a crime that there was not enough evidence to say beyond a reasonable doubt that he committed.

Edited by hypochondriac
Link to comment
Share on other sites

if the evidence was tainted, it would not have been credible.

surely?

 

how come earlier in the thread, you were a huge champion of the the courts/justice system on this case...not anymore it seems, sadly

Yeah interesting isn't it. When Ched was found guilty there wasn't any room for thinking he may have a good chance at an appeal. You weren't allowed to think there were any flaws in this case because that made you a "rape apologist." Now he's found not guilty, suddenly the system is corrupt and its all just because he bought some new witnesses to make up evidence. Really makes you think.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pretty sure it was the CPS that said she didn't consent not the girl herself as she has no recollection of what occurred.

 

Let's just be clear though that this thread was bumped by soggy because he's embarrassed at his initial reaction which was to scream rape apologist at posters who justifiably thought there was more to this case that could result in a successful appeal. Rather than address that though and maybe approach the matter with a bit of humility considering that those people were entirely correct, he's gone on another cringey and irrelevant rape culture type rant. The facts are:

 

 

Ched Evans is not a convicted rapist, he has been found innocent of the charge.

 

Ched Evans is a bit of a bellend.

 

 

Those who thought the original verdict was a bit suspect and that an appeal had a good chance to succeed have been proven right.

 

Those people who shouted rape apologist or other insults at anyone who thought the original verdict was a bit suspect have not only been found to be wrong, but have embarrassed themselves and would probably be respected more if they stayed quiet on the matter.

 

Questioning the original verdict based on the facts of the case does not equal "supporting" Ched Evan's actions. It is possible to be critical of the man's actions whilst being glad that justice seems to have been served and that he has been found innocent of a crime that there was not enough evidence to say beyond a reasonable doubt that he committed.

 

I expect those points will be a bit too nuanced for soggy but hopefully clearer for others to understand.

Let's just remind ourselves of the facts in this case now that soggy is trying to suggest the justice system has been conned by Ched Evans buying witnesses to hoodwink a jury.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was her third threesome in a few days. Was her drink spiked every time. You’re defending some dirty chick just because a white male was involved. She wasn’t some innocent that was taken advantage of. A FEMALE judge ruled that her sexual past was relevant in this case, it’s clear why that was.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

Dirty chick? What planet are you from? Why would I have an issue with a white male? I have an issue because an incapacitated woman was picked up and taken to a pre booked (by Evans) hotel room where his mate had sex with her and phoned Evans telling him he had someone. Evans turned up, did what he wanted without uttering a word to the woman and then crept out via the fire exit. The evidence provided showed the woman was clearly incapacitated. His mate had a choice. He could have left her alone or he could have seen that she got home safely. Instead he took her to a prebooked hotel room and had sex with her. He then got his mate round for some action. Somehow now Evans is a victim? Poor Ched. He was forced to go to a hotel and perform a sex act with a “dirty chick.” Give me a break!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dirty chick? What planet are you from? Why would I have an issue with a white male? I have an issue because an incapacitated woman was picked up and taken to a pre booked (by Evans) hotel room where his mate had sex with her and phoned Evans telling him he had someone. Evans turned up, did what he wanted without uttering a word to the woman and then crept out via the fire exit. The evidence provided showed the woman was clearly incapacitated. His mate had a choice. He could have left her alone or he could have seen that she got home safely. Instead he took her to a prebooked hotel room and had sex with her. He then got his mate round for some action. Somehow now Evans is a victim? Poor Ched. He was forced to go to a hotel and perform a sex act with a “dirty chick.” Give me a break!
Ched Evans is not a convicted rapist, he has been found innocent of the charge.

 

Ched Evans is a bit of a bellend.

 

Those who thought the original verdict was a bit suspect and that an appeal had a good chance to succeed have been proven right.

 

Those people who shouted rape apologist or other insults at anyone who thought the original verdict was a bit suspect have not only been found to be wrong, but have embarrassed themselves and would probably be respected more if they stayed quiet on the matter.

 

Questioning the original verdict based on the facts of the case does not equal "supporting" Ched Evan's actions. It is possible to be critical of the man's actions whilst being glad that justice seems to have been served and that he has been found innocent of a crime that there was not enough evidence to say beyond a reasonable doubt that he committed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

are you happy justice has been served?

 

None of us know if justice has been served. None of us know if this was the correct outcome. All we know is that he was convicted, but that another court later felt that there was sufficient evidence to support the initial verdict.

 

In terms of this thread, the fundamental difference is that the likes of soggy take the view that a victim of rape is the victim. The likes of you and Hypo take the view that the accused is the victim.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

None of us know if justice has been served. None of us know if this was the correct outcome. All we know is that he was convicted, but that another court later felt that there was sufficient evidence to support the initial verdict.

 

In terms of this thread, the fundamental difference is that the likes of soggy take the view that a victim of rape is the victim. The likes of you and Hypo take the view that the accused is the victim.

 

That's complete and utter b*locks. Please find one example of where I've said anywhere that a rape victim is not a victim? I've said since the start of this that looking at the facts of the case, that the conviction didn't seem that strong and that an appeal had a good chance of succeeding. This is what has happened. Ched Evans is a bellend but he's also innocent in the eyes of the law for the rape offense. We can't start convicting people who have been found innocent just because he seems like not a great bloke, that's an absurd standard. All we can do is put our faith in the justice system which whilst flawed is currently the best system we have. The likes of soggy are quite happy to crow about how good the system is up until the point that it does something they disagree with politically and then it can't be trusted abd it's corrupt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's complete and utter b*locks. Please find one example of where I've said anywhere that a rape victim is not a victim? I've said since the start of this that looking at the facts of the case, that the conviction didn't seem that strong and that an appeal had a good chance of succeeding. This is what has happened. Ched Evans is a bellend but he's also innocent in the eyes of the law for the rape offense. We can't start convicting people who have been found innocent just because he seems like not a great bloke, that's an absurd standard. All we can do is put our faith in the justice system which whilst flawed is currently the best system we have. The likes of soggy are quite happy to crow about how good the system is up until the point that it does something they disagree with politically and then it can't be trusted abd it's corrupt.

 

Exactly - in all honesty I'm not sure what the correct decision is here and whether he is a rapist or not. However, from the facts in the case, I don't think there was enough evidence to prosecute, so justice has probably been served.

 

He's a scumbag though, that's for sure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's complete and utter b*locks. Please find one example of where I've said anywhere that a rape victim is not a victim? I've said since the start of this that looking at the facts of the case, that the conviction didn't seem that strong and that an appeal had a good chance of succeeding. This is what has happened. Ched Evans is a bellend but he's also innocent in the eyes of the law for the rape offense. We can't start convicting people who have been found innocent just because he seems like not a great bloke, that's an absurd standard. All we can do is put our faith in the justice system which whilst flawed is currently the best system we have. The likes of soggy are quite happy to crow about how good the system is up until the point that it does something they disagree with politically and then it can't be trusted abd it's corrupt.

 

I really can't be bothered to do that, I have less time on my hands than you seem to have. However, it is very clear from the tone and content of your posts (eg that you're "glad that justice seems to have been served and that he has been found innocent") that you seem pleased that he's finally been acquitted. Why? You are unconnected with the fella so why such belief that the initial verdict was wrong, and such relief by the ultimate verdict? Frankly it's all a bit bizarre, and quite why people feel the need to do a forum lap of honour cos a bloke is acquitted of rape of a young woman I cannot understand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really can't be bothered to do that, I have less time on my hands than you seem to have. However, it is very clear from the tone and content of your posts (eg that you're "glad that justice seems to have been served and that he has been found innocent") that you seem pleased that he's finally been acquitted. Why? You are unconnected with the fella so why such belief that the initial verdict was wrong, and such relief by the ultimate verdict? Frankly it's all a bit bizarre, and quite why people feel the need to do a forum lap of honour cos a bloke is acquitted of rape of a young woman I cannot understand.

 

I'll take from that that you have no evidence that I said any such thing about a rape victim so I accept your apology.

 

If you read the rest of the thread you would be well aware of why I would be pleased that justice seems to have been done. I'm happy about it because I don't like seeing individuals convicted of a crime when I'm not sure they have committed that crime (and who the person is is irrelevant in that.) of course it has the added benefit of making soggy look like a fool when he was calling anyone who thought an appeal would have a good chance of success a "rape apologist" so I'm also thankful in that respect too.

 

I think when you get falsely smeared as a rape apologist or an advocate of Ched Evans' poor behaviour during the original conviction it's perfectly acceptable to talk about this once the conviction has been overturned.

Edited by hypochondriac
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm happy about it because I don't like seeing individuals convicted of a crime when I'm not sure they have committed that crime (and who the person is is irrelevant in that.) of course it has the added benefit of making soggy look like a fool when he was calling anyone who thought an appeal would have a good chance of success a "rape apologist" so I'm also thankful in that respect too.

 

I think when you get falsely smeared as a rape apologist or an advocate of Ched Evans' poor behaviour during the original conviction it's perfectly acceptable to talk about this once the conviction has been overturned.

 

I'll focus on just these words. I wouldn't call you a rape apologist but you protest a hell of a lot on behalf of someone who was convicted of rape but later acquitted. I've read enough of this thread to note that you have played judge and jury without knowing the full facts and/or what Evans was thinking that night - you say that you don't feel that Evans committed the crime. question why you feel you can say that and/or why you feel the need to. Sure, the conviction appeared unsafe, but to lurch from that to protesting his innocence is a big step and one can see why the label has been attacked to you.

 

Soggy hasn't come out of this looking like a "fool". He seems to understand that rape is hideous and that people who are acquitted may well have committed a crime. There's no "justice" in that. Indeed - the application of the law and justice rarely reconcile.

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})