advertisement


Should Ched Evans be playing professional soccer?

I'm surprised anybody gives a toss about Ched Evans, apart from the fact that he deserved to serve his 5 year term.

Jack

Wise words....as a believer in the outcome of the judicial process, will you be going back to delete what you wrote about him?
 
Anybody like to revisit their comments here?

I shouldn't ever post anything on a football thread. I just have zero time or respect for it, its players or many of its supporters. A national embarrassment IMHO. Even if with 20/20 hindsight I spoke wrongly about Evans I don't feel I did about the game in general! By saying that it is no more or less daft to make comments about a guilty or later innocent verdict; one is still only commenting on the findings of a judge, jury and full legal process. Given the evidence to hand at the time, i.e. his successful prosecution for rape, assuming he was a rapist was the logical conclusion.
 
So Ched Evans SHOULD still be playing football. I wonder if Dame whatever she is called will make her apology?
 
More to it than just a footballer (millionare at Sheffield United ? )

Mears’ case follows three other alleged sexual attack cases that collapsed after evidence undermining the police and prosecution case was revealed to defence lawyers only late in the day. Those three were investigated by the Metropolitan police.

Student Liam Allan was cleared in December of multiple counts of rape, and Isaac Itiary, who was charged with raping a child, was freed days later.
On Monday, Samson Makele was cleared of rape after it emerged that images from the defendant’s phone of him in bed with his alleged victim had not been disclosed.

In those three cases, disclosure – the police and prosecution’s duty to share material with the defence that may undermine its case – appeared to be the issue and led to the Met reviewing all forthcoming rape cases.
 
More to it than just a footballer (millionare at Sheffield United ? )

Mears’ case follows three other alleged sexual attack cases that collapsed after evidence undermining the police and prosecution case was revealed to defence lawyers only late in the day. Those three were investigated by the Metropolitan police.

Student Liam Allan was cleared in December of multiple counts of rape, and Isaac Itiary, who was charged with raping a child, was freed days later.
On Monday, Samson Makele was cleared of rape after it emerged that images from the defendant’s phone of him in bed with his alleged victim had not been disclosed.

In those three cases, disclosure – the police and prosecution’s duty to share material with the defence that may undermine its case – appeared to be the issue and led to the Met reviewing all forthcoming rape cases.
What happens to the accusers in these cases? To falsely accuse someone of a crime they didn't commit is at best wasting police and the courts' time, and at worst attempting to pervert the course of justice.
 
In some cases, they are pursued and prosecuted, eg 'Nick' of the Westminster scandal infamy who is currently staring down the throat of charges, I think. I would imagine that a view will be taken in each case as to the merits. If there remains evidence to suggest that while the defendant may not be guilty, neither are they squeaky clean, or that the accuser is mentally ill or troubled in some way, then a prosecution may not be considered in the public interest. But my understanding is that the police do take seriously the matter of having their time wasted, or malicious allegations, and will take action where it is warranted.
 
In the Evans case the young lady involved never alleged rape or even made any comment one way or the other about whether she consented, so can't see that she'd be at risk of prosecution. With some of the others there could (maybe even should) be prosecutions given the damage and costs incurred. In a couple of the cases it would almost appear like it was the prosecution that attempted to pervert the course of justice by withholding key evidence.
 
What happens to the accusers in these cases? To falsely accuse someone of a crime they didn't commit is at best wasting police and the courts' time, and at worst attempting to pervert the course of justice.

It would be wrong to presume that in every case where an alleged rapist is found not guilty that the complainant has falsely accused anyone.

In many cases of rape the jury often have only the testimony of the witness and the defendant to choose between. In some of the cases quoted above the prosecution failed because the police and/or CPS did not take account of all the evidence or did not make it available to the defence in good time.

Those accusations that are clearly malicious should be addressed though.
 
In the Evans case the young lady involved never alleged rape or even made any comment one way or the other about whether she consented, so can't see that she'd be at risk of prosecution.

True, the case was brought and driven by the local police force.

There were two men in the hotel room both were accused of rape, one was acquited but Ched was found guilty.
 
It would be wrong to presume that in every case where an alleged rapist is found not guilty that the complainant has falsely accused anyone.

Yes, of course . But there have been a few high profile cases recently where (as far as one can tell from what has been reported) it eventually became clear that the accuser had lied. It was these cases I had in mind, and where the final outcome is almost never reported.
 
Yes, of course . But there have been a few high profile cases recently where (as far as one can tell from what has been reported) it became clear that the accuser had lied. It was these cases I had in mind, and where the final outcome is almost never reported.

This is the downside of the 'victims must be believed' trend. Clearly allegations must be listened to, taken seriously, and investigated, but this sometimes veers over into presuming guilt and pre-empting the judicial process. Not only is this obviously bad per se when no offence has been committed, it also endangers successful prosecutions when an offence has been committed (because the police/CPS cut corners in their investigations, for example).
 
As a result of the Ched Evan's case they are trying to change the law to prevent the use of the 'evidence' which eventually cleared him.

Though it was a change in the law which saw him prosecuted in the first place.

It's called progress.

To be safe these days you need written consent before sex takes place, though if you are considered intoxicated then 'consent' cannot be deemed to be legally valid.
 
I believe wh smith will soon start to sell pads of pre-printed sex consent contracts to be signed by all parties prior to the act taking place
 


advertisement


Back
Top