Accused rapist Ched Evans to be released from prison

[Treacle Toes]

Why did the CPS think it proper for both of them to be charged with rape to begin with?

You didn't answer my question.

 

[Athos]

You're an awful cheat. I'm beginning to lose respect for you.

The pertinent strands of our discussion that I abandoned yesterday were on the timing of the new evidence, and my previous belief that they established a pattern of behaviour. Neither of which I have relied on today.

The second part of this is demonstrably false:

I prepared to accept that it was a genuine mistake, in which case I will accept a retraction.

On the broader issue, you seem to be foundering all over the place and resorting to ever more desperate tactics!

I've lost respect for you, already.

And the idea that anything you've cobbled together has had me floundering is laughable.

I'm happy for anyone to consider the evidence of our exchange and see what really happened.

Yesterday, you seemed to be basing your argument about the propriety of the acquittal on the two factors about which you subsequently conceded you were wrong. Today, you continue to pursue the same conclusion i.e. to assert that the ultimate outcome was proper, but now you are casting around for other arguments to bolster that position.

A position you seem determined to take, no matter what. For reasons best known to you.

Since we've reached a point where we're doing little more than accuse each other of lying, we should leave it there (perhaps conveniently for your pride).

 

[Joe Reilly]

They applied the threshold test for charging, one limb of which requires them to believe there's a reasonable prospect of conviction. That he was acquitted died not mean that there had not been that reasonable prospect.[/QUOTE

The very fact that one out of the two involved in a joint enterprise was acquitted outright, demonstrated a gigantic flaw in the credibility of the whole process and it should have led the judge to to direct the jury to acquit Evans as a consequence.

After all, as the prosecution originally had it, it was his co-accused not Evans who 'procured' the woman to begin with. He then invited Evans to join in. In that sense, he might, as instigator have been considered to be the guiltier of the two.

Only if his co-accused had turned state's evidence might it have been safe to uphold Evan's conviction in the circumstances. And even then it might have been questionable.

 

[Spymaster]

Yesterday, you seemed to be basing your argument about the propriety of the acquittal on the two factors about which you subsequently conceded you were wrong.

Massively dishonest again.

Those two factors, if correct, simply bolstered a far broader argument which stands up to scrutiny despite their absence.

Today, you continue to pursue the same conclusion i.e. to assert that the ultimate outcome was proper, but now you are casting around for other arguments to bolster that position.

Mendacious again. The conceded points are not required to conclude that the outcome was correct. It's not a question of casting around; the case against your position is simply far more comprehensive and multi-faceted than you care to admit.

Anyway, I'll also allow others to draw their own conclusions. You'll have the majority here, not because of anything that you've posted, but because it was all but a captive audience for you in the first place!

Your standard MO seems to be to misrepresent and make things personal when all isn't going your way, and it's happening here.

 

[Athos]

Your standard MO seems to be to misrepresent and make things personal when all isn't going your way...

Says the person who had to apologise for calling me an idiot yesterday, after I demonstrated he was completely wrong, for a second time. Lol.

 

[Nanker Phelge]

Two pricks on the internet don't respect each other.....and a young woman has been put through hell so another wealthy white man can stand up and speak as a victim in his warnings about consent and alcohol...and fly his innocent flag like a true martyr.

What a load of shit.

 

[Spymaster]

Says the person who had to apologise for calling me an idiot yesterday ...

And I stand by that apology. But limit it to what it actually regarded!

 

[Athos]

Two pricks on the internet don't respect each other.....and a young woman has been put through hell so another wealthy white man can stand up and speak as a victim in his warnings about consent and alcohol...and fly his innocent flag like a true martyr.

What a load of shit.

Three pricks now.

 

[Wilf]

Joe Reilly - Ched Evans was convicted at the first trial and acquitted at second. What was different about the second trial?

 

[Nanker Phelge]

Three pricks now.

Do you ever shut up?

 

[Joe Reilly]

Joe Reilly - Ched Evans was convicted at the first trial and acquitted at second. What was different about the second trial?

Your looking at it the wrong way round.

 

[Treacle Toes]

Your looking at it the wrong way round.

Care to actually answer my question ?

Why do you think M was acquitted and CE convicted in the first trial?

 

[Orang Utan]

Your looking at it the wrong way round.

when are you going to defend your comments that it can't be rape if the woman went into the hotel room of her own accord? This is nasty shit and you shouldn't be allowed to wriggle out of this

 

[Athos]

Do you ever shut up?

Fuck off.

 

[Wilf]

Your looking at it the wrong way round.

Do you think the 2 trials were conducted in the same way?

 

[Nanker Phelge]

Fuck off.

No then.

 

[bimble]

This is just horrible this thread. Really what is there left to say?
The only thing that everyone seems to agree on completely is that X has been through hell for no fault of her own as a result of a huge amount of strangers discussing her very private life, and here it is continuing endlessly. It's gross, nobody will 'win'.

 

[Athos]

No then.

Classic.

 

[Spymaster]

This is just horrible this thread. Really what is there left to say?
The only thing that everyone seems to agree on completely is that X has been through hell for no fault of her own as a result of a huge amount of strangers discussing her very private life, and here it is continuing endlessly. It's gross, nobody will 'win'.

What's the alternative?

People disagree on what's happened. Those disagreements are bound to be discussed, given that this is a very large piece of recent news.

 

[Orang Utan]

What's the alternative?

People disagree on what's happened. Those disagreements are bound to be discussed, given that this is a very large piece of recent news.

There's a time to give it up when you're saying the same thing over and over again though while convincing no one but yourself. You need to wind your neck in.

 

[Spymaster]

There's a time to give it up when you're saying the same thing over and over again though while convincing no one but yourself. You need to wind your neck in.

Don't be daft. Are you saying that this shouldn't be discussed because it's somehow disrespectful to X? That seemed to be what Bimble was suggesting.

 

[Diamond]

There's a time to give it up when you're saying the same thing over and over again though while convincing no one but yourself. You need to wind your neck in.

"Winding your neck in" is a pernicious idea

 

[cyril_smear]

Case should never have come to court, and everybody loses as a result of it being brought. Absolutely everybody. From her original statements, the woman herself didn't understand the nature of alcoholic blackouts (this was her first one, it seems), and it appears the police and those deciding to prosecute didn't understand them either. I've experienced them more times than I'd care to admit, so the idea that you can lose hours of your life in which you find out later that you did all kinds of things is very normal to me. And reading of her night, it had all the hallmarks of a blackout. Talking to others outside of here and also reading posts on here, people who've never experienced one seem not quite to understand what it is. A fuck-up from start to end.

What is an alcoholic blackout?

 

[Orang Utan]

Don't be daft. Are you saying that this shouldn't be discussed because it's somehow disrespectful to X? That seemed to be what Bimble was suggesting.

Kind of, yes.
But it's also pointless and circuitous.

 

[Spymaster]

"Winding your neck in" is a pernicious idea

It seems to me to be that the only comment OU and a few others on here want posted are those loudly supporting his view.

Anyone disagreeing should 'wind their necks in'.

 

[Athos]

Don't be daft. Are you saying that this shouldn't be discussed because it's somehow disrespectful to X? That seemed to be what Bimble was suggesting.

Depends what's said. For instance your utterly false claim of yesterday that "there was already evidence that she frequently forgot about consenting to sex" could be considered disrespectful.

 

[Joe Reilly]

when are you going to defend your comments that it can't be rape if the woman went into the hotel room of her own accord? This is nasty shit and you shouldn't be allowed to wriggle out of this

'A woman can't be raped if she walked into the hotel room of her own accord'. These are entirely your words. Not mine. So put away the pitchforks.



I'm ready to defend the comment you found so offensive. But in all honesty the onus is on you to produce it first.

 

[Spymaster]

Kind of, yes.

Well it's not and she's unlikely to be reading it anyway.

But it's also pointless and circuitous.

How long have you been here?

 

[Joe Reilly]

Care to actually answer my question ?

See my post 3620.

 

[Spymaster]

Depends what's said. For instance your utterly false claim of yesterday that "there was already evidence that she frequently forgot about consenting to sex" could be considered disrespectful.

Wow, you really haven't got anything else besides that, which was conceded, and became irrelevant today.

You've taken a beating and you're really smarting aren't you???