Ched Evans

[scaramanga]

Your first comments are unbelievable. Are you genuinely saying that wanting to work in CPS is a 'poor life choice'? No mate, a 'poor life choice' is swanning about a fudgeing pub getting tinkleed up and larging it because you're a famous footballer in a small town and then thinking you can just show up at any party you like and stick your ding dong wherever you like. THAT is a 'poor life choice' if, in fact, you have a life. Wanting to protect young people? A fudgeing NOBLE one my friend, noble...

Of course it's a poor life choice. Working for the CPS is like being a footballer but playing for Burton Albion, or being a pilot but for Ryanair, or a musician in Keane.

Your second one falls flatter than a brick souffle...there was a case, it was tried, he was banged up for it and his legal team found a loophole. Again, if she had the money, and if it was possible, I am sure she could play the margins and appeal the appeal.

There were no loopholes here, read the link I posted a page or so up. The CPS has to prove that he had reason to believe that she wasn't consenting. With her entire statement being "I don't remember" there was never going to be a case.

 

[r-u-s-x]

I don't want to come across as a Rape apologist because I am not - think it is disgusting, vile and for those who do deserve everything they get.

In this case I think there always was serious questions about the conviction and I have yet to be convinced otherwise.

 

[parklane1]

I don't want to come across as a Rape apologist because I am not - think it is disgusting, vile and for those who do deserve everything they get.

In this case I think there always was serious questions about the conviction and I have yet to be convinced otherwise.

Pretty much where i stand on this as well, and to go back to my first point on this if the CPS are going to name folks in cases like this before a trail it should be both or none.

 

[StephenH]

The CPS are on a hiding to nil with the prosecution of 'non violent' rape cases.

 

[tommysvr]

And you do? i take it you must work in the legal business ( or maybe a social worker which would explain a lot).

I sat in court for a week before watching the rapist of someone I know get found not guilty.

Pretty much where i stand on this as well, and to go back to my first point on this if the CPS are going to name folks in cases like this before a trail it should be both or none.

...and with the above, you would support her behind named in public. You don't know what you're talking about.

 

[parklane1]

I sat in court for a week before watching the rapist of someone I know get found not guilty.



...and with the above, you would support her behind named in public. You don't know what you're talking about.

(1) So you have no legal training then, you are just a tinkled of friend of someone you know who could not prove she was raped?

(2) And as i said before you DO know what your talking about? If a guy/woman is found guilty of rape they should have the book thrown at them and named and shamed in the public eye, not BEFORE they have even gone on trail UNLESS both partys are treated the same way. It seems you have a problem getting your head round that premise for whatever reason.

 

[thfcsteff]

I don't want to come across as a Rape apologist because I am not - think it is disgusting, vile and for those who do deserve everything they get.

In this case I think there always was serious questions about the conviction and I have yet to be convinced otherwise.

Absolutely mate, and apologies if I framed my replies in a fashion which suggested that.

 

[thfcsteff]

Of course it's a poor life choice. Working for the CPS is like being a footballer but playing for Burton Albion, or being a pilot but for Ryanair, or a musician in Keane.


There were no loopholes here, read the link I posted a page or so up. The CPS has to prove that he had reason to believe that she wasn't consenting. With her entire statement being "I don't remember" there was never going to be a case.

There is literally no answer to your first point. It is a fundamental, and possibly philosophical, train of thought. I might yet start referring to you as Darwin mate.

I have read the link. Possibly the 'only' area where your implied ridicule of CPS might have a ring tone is in this situation. Like legal aid/state lawyers, they simply do not come with the correct tools to prove the point to a jury of our peers. Had they been on their game, I suspect there were more than enough pieces to make sure an appeal jury knew enough not to feel there was sufficient evidence to prove she had implied consent. The critical factor here was the ability of the defense to afford a higher caliber of legal team, one versed in the ways and arts of not only appeals, but jury quashing. it took them a long time to find the sliver of potential in that possibility and they finally found something and exploited it to the max. Like it or not, that is exactly what this case comes down to. And you can call it what you like, but it IS loophole 'justice', of the sort that saw OJ get off.

 

[thfcsteff]

The CPS are on a hiding to nil with the prosecution of 'non violent' rape cases.

I think we can all agree on this. Again, I think when CPS come up against a battery of high-powered, elite lawyers, it gets tougher still. I'd be very interested to see if contributors to this discussion have a 'gut' opinion on this specific matter, not that it's especially relevant I concede...

 

[tommysvr]

(1) So you have no legal training then, you are just a tinkleed of friend of someone you know who could not prove she was raped?

(2) And as i said before you DO know what your talking about? If a guy/woman is found guilty of rape they should have the book thrown at them and named and shamed in the public eye, not BEFORE they have even gone on trail UNLESS both partys are treated the same way. It seems you have a problem getting your head round that premise for whatever reason.

(1) proves it perfectly. No, the girl did not have to prove she was raped. That was up to the prosecutor. Therefore, it would be wholly unfair to name her.

 

[parklane1]

(1) proves it perfectly. No, the girl did not have to prove she was raped. That was up to the prosecutor. Therefore, it would be wholly unfair to name her.

Once again you have ignored the point i was making in the first place, no one or both should be named before a trail.

 

[monkeybarry]

Once again you have ignored the point i was making in the first place, no one or both should be named before a trail.

Initially I would have agreed with you - but the stats in this article are making me rethink that.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.ne...remain-anonymous?amp?client=ms-android-google


I definitely agree with the victim having anonymity as I think to not do so is likely to deter people coming forwards.
The principle of defendant anonymity makes sense, but the low rates of false rape claims don't seem to justify the position

 

[parklane1]

Initially I would have agreed with you - but the stats in this article are making me rethink that.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/03/why-rape-suspects-should-not-remain-anonymous?amp?client=ms-android-google


I definitely agree with the victim having anonymity as I think to not do so is likely to deter people coming forwards.
The principle of defendant anonymity makes sense, but the low rates of false rape claims don't seem to justify the position

If a person is found guilty then their name will come out at the verdict, however they have been cases over the years when the named accused have been found not guilty, now assuming that most of those were correct decisions then the one who was falsley accused has had their name dragged through the mud for no good reason. This does not just effect them but their familys as well, that is not right. ( imo)

 

[tommysvr]

If a person is found guilty then their name will come out at the verdict, however they have been cases over the years when the named accused have been found not guilty, now assuming that most of those were correct decisions then the one who was falsley accused has had their name dragged through the mud for no good reason. This does not just effect them but their familys as well, that is not right. ( imo)

Read the article. Among other good points, it uses the example of Mike Tyson, who was even found guilty yet doesn't suffer any stigma from the case.

 

[parklane1]

Read the article. Among other good points, it uses the example of Mike Tyson, who was even found guilty yet doesn't suffer any stigma from the case.

I have a feeling i am wasting my time here seeing as you have not answered my first point so i will give this up, you are obviously still going to ignore it. I am out of knocking my head on a brick wall.

 

[Baleforce]

Read the article. Among other good points, it uses the example of Mike Tyson, who was even found guilty yet doesn't suffer any stigma from the case.

what, Tyson, that rapist who used to be a boxer?

the mud sticks, look at Cliff Richard

I don't know what the answer is, and i'm not commenting on this specific case, but publicly naming someone before the legal process has completed doesn't seem right to me

 

[milo]

I don't think that there are any easy answers with this. My priority would be to make it as easy as possible for the victims of sexual assault and rape to be able to report it and have confidence in the system. One argument in favour of naming the alleged perpetrator is that it may encourage other people to come forward and corroborate the account, if it is repeat behaviour. I think that the simplest solution in the short term is if the media were more restrained in how they covered cases.

 

[Baleforce]

I don't think that there are any easy answers with this. My priority would be to make it as easy as possible for the victims of sexual assault and rape to be able to report it and have confidence in the system. One argument in favour of naming the alleged perpetrator is that it may encourage other people to come forward and corroborate the account, if it is repeat behaviour. I think that the simplest solution in the short term is if the media were more restrained in how they covered cases.

Sadly that's the one thing that won't happen.

I understand the statistics behind naming the alleged but (speaking generally again) it's at odds with the presumption of innocence a fair legal system requires.

 

[tommysvr]

what, Tyson, that rapist who used to be a boxer?

No, Mike Tyson who had a role in the giant Hollywood movie The Hangover.

I don't think that there are any easy answers with this. My priority would be to make it as easy as possible for the victims of sexual assault and rape to be able to report it and have confidence in the system. One argument in favour of naming the alleged perpetrator is that it may encourage other people to come forward and corroborate the account, if it is repeat behaviour. I think that the simplest solution in the short term is if the media were more restrained in how they covered cases.

The media in the Evans case might have been different because he was originally found guilty, but quite often is the alleged victim who is victimised once more. A quick Google / Wiki search shows more.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_of_Rehtaeh_Parsons

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steubenville_High_School_rape_case

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/john...student-parties-lot-alcohol/story?id=38429352

And then of course the comments from a judge when sentencing a convicted rapist:

http://www.theatlantic.com/news/archive/2016/06/stanford-rape-case-judge/487415/

 

[Baleforce]

No, Mike Tyson who had a role in the giant Hollywood movie The Hangover.

not seen it, any good?