Ched ......... is this nearer the truth ?

[TarquinDelouche]

So you agree with me.

I'll agree with you when you admit you just threw down an unfounded and sweeping generalisation about a lot of people you know nothing about.

 

[munich]

I'll agree with you when you admit you just threw down an unfounded and sweeping generalisation about a lot of people you know nothing about.

Yep, you're right. But I thought that was the norm for this thread. Do you agree with me now?

 

[mattbianco1]

No I cant enlighten you because I wasnt a member of the jury. The fact is (and this is a fact) is that a jury without any known prejudice against the young, the rich or footballers found there was sufficient evidence to bring in a guilty verdict. Ched Evans has the right to appeal but in the meantime he is a convicted rapist. Those who dont want to believe it are going through the normal process: first the girl must be a slag; second the jury must be a load of halfwits; third, and perhaps most incredibly, the police force is full of closet liberal/feminist types - funny never noticed that before.

Are you female?

I don't like your signature. Makes men sound like pieces of meat.

 

[mattbianco1]

In all seriousness Munich.

I agree that if Ched is guilty then he should be behind bars. The thing i don't get is how one got away with it when she accused BOTH?!

That is the problem.... A perverse verdict IMO

Beighton posted the article on a forum to open up a debate and that appears to be exactly what he has created

 

[Bladesman]

In all seriousness Munich.

I agree that if Ched is guilty then he should be behind bars. The thing i don't get is how one got away with it when she accused BOTH?!

That is the problem.

Beighton posted the article on a forum to open up a debate and that appears to be exactly what he has created

Had they both been sent down none of us would be questioning it so much I reckon.

 

[mattbianco1]

Had they both been sent down none of us would be questioning it so much I reckon.

Exactly my thoughts.

 

[norfolkblade]

Had they both been sent down none of us would be questioning it so much I reckon.

Absolutely spot on, I'm sure there would still be people that disagree with the verdict, that's only natural, but it wouldn't have caused anywhere near the amount of debate that this verdict has!

 

[super_pig]

> 61,000 in WWII
that's quite a few isn't it.. source??
point being that it is the same people who bleat about the military and 'rights' who are the very people that are advantaged by those same people.. if it wasn't for the military quietly going about protecting those 'rights' then they wouldn't have any in the first place

 

[Darren]

> 61,000 in WWII
that's quite a few isn't it.. source??

It's less than 1% of the people who fought and less than 0.2% of the then UK population.

The source is this:

http://www.ppu.org.uk/learn/infodocs/cos/st_co_wwtwo.html

The relevant passage is this:

"About 60,000 men and 1,000 women applied for exemption from armed service. Nearly 3,000 were given unconditional exemption. Around 18,000 were turned down altogether as not 'genuine'. The remainder were either allowed exemption conditional on doing alternative civilian work, or put on the military service register as non-combatants. About a third appealed against the decisions; subsequent appeal tribunals revised about half of these after re-examination."

 

[super_pig]

bloody smart arse liberal lawyer

 

[anglian blade]

Had they both been sent down none of us would be questioning it so much I reckon.

I would - I still cannot see how a girl who can walk unaided and get into a taxi can be too drunk to consnt

 

[sitwell]

It's actually not that easy to get the CPS to prosecute for rape. I have acted for a few women who were mightily pissed off that the CPS wouldn't prosecute despite what seemed fairly compelling evidence. It's a complete myth to suggest that a woman only has to make an allegation and a bloke is dragged through the courts.

But you said over 95% of reported rapes go to trial

 

[Highbury_Blade]

No, it's 95% don't go to trial

 

[sitwell]

No, it's 95% don't go to trial

Thats what I said but I was shouted down and ridiculed by darren and others.

 

[Bedrock Blade]

Nice to see RT have the balls to reply to the outraged bandwagoners

http://rt.com/usa/columns/namenotfound/evans-rape-british-press/

 

[Darren]

But you said over 95% of reported rapes go to trial

No I didn't. I said that a Home Office Study showed that something between 3% and 8% of rape allegations were false.

 

[sitwell]

Sorry but you didnt ,I said only about 5% of alledged rapes get to trial and you absolutely ridiculed it.You came out with some study and your lawyer waffle and insinuated I knew fuck all.

 

[Darren]

Sorry but you didnt ,I said only about 5% of alledged rapes get to trial and you absolutely ridiculed it.You came out with some study and your lawyer waffle and insinuated I knew fuck all.

No you said 95% of rape allegations were false. You said nothing about how many came to trial. That was based on what your mate in the police told you. I told you there had been a Home Office survey which put the figure of false allegations at 3-8%.

If you click on this you will see that half to 2/3 of rape allegations do not progress beyond the investigation stage, which means half to 1/3 reach trial.

www.fawcettsociety.org.uk/.../Rape%20-%20The%20Facts.docSimilar

I love the way how objective scientific evidence is apparently "lawyer waffle" and to be discounted because of what you are told by one person.

 

[super_pig]

you're arguing different points lads.. behave..

 

[sitwell]

No you said 95% of rape allegations were false. You said nothing about how many came to trial. That was based on what your mate in the police told you. I told you there had been a Home Office survey which put the figure of false allegations at 3-8%.

If you click on this you will see that half to 2/3 of rape allegations do not progress beyond the investigation stage, which means half to 1/3 reach trial.

www.fawcettsociety.org.uk/.../Rape%20-%20The%20Facts.docSimilar

I love the way how objective scientific evidence is apparently "lawyer waffle" and to be discounted because of what you are told by one person.

and I love the way you use 300 words when half a dozen will do

 

[1889]

As I've said before I believe it is ridiculous that one can be found guilty whilst the other is innocent and hope his appeal is successful.

After much thought I honestly think the reason that Ched got convicted, is the way the jury perceived him to be, which would have been based on his demeanour, the nature and tone of his replies.

In a case such as this, where there is very little factual corroborated evidence and it is reliant on one persons word over another, I think a juries decision is influenced by their perception of the defendants character and based on that, whether or not they could imagine them commiting the alleged offence.

Obviously I wasn't there, but I've seen him walking into court with his hands in his pockets and read his replies such as 'We're footballers, we have money and can get any girl we like' or words to that affect. He went out of the fire escape in case his girlfriend rang him, just to reiterate he was betraying her trust aswell. Previously lied to the Police about his mobile phone, thereby questioning his integrity. In the Mirror it was reported that when McDonalds not guilty verdict was read out 'the defendants banged their heads together' this is obviously after the decision will have been made, but is not the actions I would expect from someone respectful of the court process.

In short, I think he's come across as some arrogant, billy big bollocks Footballer who thinks he is above the law and can do what he likes. Whilst legal opinion may poo poo this theory, lets not forget that juries are not made up of Solicitors or Barristers, they are made up of ordinary every day people, who have little knowledge of the legal process. When faced with some cocky footballer who probably earns more in a month than they earn in a year, any element of doubt will fall squarely in favour of the poor victim.

As I said, I hope Cheds appeal is successful because I do not think he is a rapist, but I hope he has learnt a lesson in humility before he stands in the dock again.

 

[Highbury_Blade]

i think there's a lot of truth in that 1889. One would have thought his brief would have instructed him to be as humble as possible. The excuse he gave as to why he left was rubbish, and i wonder exactly how well his legal team prepared him.

 

[Junior Soduko]

Very good post there imo 1889.

I know there is a lot of talk about that his legal team let him down etc, but for some reason i get the feeling that ched (and i dont know the guy so maybe im wrong) wouldnt be the best in getting his reasons across. I dont think he is the most articulate of individuals and i think this can change peoples perception of you. I think that his legal team would have instructed him what to say, and i think its more a case of him not following what they said, or that he just simply didnt do it very well.

That doesnt make him guilty however, and i for one dont think he is. I just think that peoples perceptions etc play a role in cases like this. I also cant help but think that the woman in question appearing via video link, doesnt allow the jury to gain a perception of her.

I understand the reasons why this occured, but who knows that if she was in the court giving evidence and the jury could see her face to face, whether this may have altered their perception of her integrity.

 

[Selly]

i think there's a lot of truth in that 1889. One would have thought his brief would have instructed him to be as humble as possible. The excuse he gave as to why he left was rubbish, and i wonder exactly how well his legal team prepared him.

The issue being that if thats the reasion he gave in his police interview, he can`t really change it during the trial without loking exceptionally shifty...legal advice about how to react in court would presumably have been not to contradict what he had said before (or indeed what CM said)

 

[grafikhaus]

The issue being that if thats the reasion he gave in his police interview, he can`t really change it during the trial without loking exceptionally shifty...legal advice about how to react in court would presumably have been not to contradict what he had said before (or indeed what CM said)

But doesn't this go to the crux of this case? If Ched was still a bit pissed when the police questioned him, wouldn't this make this 'evidence' inadmissible?

Ched's problems began when, upon engaging a solicitor, he fell for the crap about being totally honest. All Ched and McDonald needed to do was get their story straight between themselves and then it would have been two stories against hers. His second mistake was trusting his career/future to what is obviously an 'Injury Lawyers4U'-type solicitor. Any half-decent brief would have driven a coach and horses through this girls' version of events.

Instead, they 'played by the rules' and we all know where that gets you in this country.

 

[Balham Blade]

grafikhaus - Ched's lawyer was a QC and so, in theory, one of the best in the country. My view is that Ched's lawyer didn't take full account of the local area: Caernarfon is quite isolated and quite traditional (first language Welsh and all that).

In addition, there is no way the Police would have interviewed him while he was pissed. Indeed, the toxicology results for both CE and CM showed only caffeine - which would tie in with their story about drinking vodka and Red Bulls, plus the inevitable morning hangover coffees (nb this is speculation!).

CE's problem is that the jury didn't accept his version of events. That problem started when he left his mum's in a taxi with his mates and went to the Rhyl Premier Inn: if he'd stayed at home none of this would have happened.

 

[grafikhaus]

grafikhaus - Ched's lawyer was a QC and so, in theory, one of the best in the country.

Yes. In theory. Some 20 years ago I needed a good brief. He was a QC and charged a ridiculous fee. Useless didn't begin to describe him.

I stand by what I said previously. Nobody - Ched or otherwise - should have got 5 years for what happens every night of the week.

 

[beightonblade]

Is Ched a bit thick ?

 

[Bladesway]

But doesn't this go to the crux of this case? If Ched was still a bit pissed when the police questioned him, wouldn't this make this 'evidence' inadmissible?

Ched's problems began when, upon engaging a solicitor, he fell for the crap about being totally honest. All Ched and McDonald needed to do was get their story straight between themselves and then it would have been two stories against hers. His second mistake was trusting his career/future to what is obviously an 'Injury Lawyers4U'-type solicitor. Any half-decent brief would have driven a coach and horses through this girls' version of events.

Instead, they 'played by the rules' and we all know where that gets you in this country.

Oh FFS, this is about the biggest pile of drivel I have ever set eyes on. So in this country we should all lie and cheat because it will get us somewhere.

Apparently the same old suspects keep banging on about how this convicted rapist couldn't have done it. I'm expecting Gene Hunt to come in next and tell everyone she was asking for it because she had high heels on.

If he appeals and gets out then alls good but all this Ched is innocent bollocks doesn't wash. It didn't wash with the Jury or the Judge. The legal process is what it is. Oddly enough its the envy of most of the evolved world. Right now, he is guilty and that is that. I know some blades like to go around with a chip on each shoulder but to decry the legal system for a case where you were neither there at the time nor there for the duration of the case is all a bit shit.

 

[Bladesway]

Is Ched a bit thick ?

He's a footballer. Go figure.