Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Accused rapist Ched Evans to be released from prison

He got away with it because he's rich the super new evidence was his victim liked sex.
Not that she engaged in threesomes or was up for a bit mate can have a go as well :rolleyes:
 
likesfish said:
He got away with it because he's rich the super new evidence was his victim liked sex.
Not that she engaged in threesomes or was up for a bit mate can have a go as well :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
So he got away with it despite having his reputation trashed, becoming almost universally loathed and spending a couple of years in prison

Not my idea of getting away with something
 
Pickman's model said:
So he got away with it despite having his reputation trashed, becoming almost universally loathed and spending a couple of years in prison

Not my idea of getting away with something
Click to expand...


Good


As said up thread, had that been my daughter he'd done that to the only court involved would have been the coroner's as they determined Evans died chocking on his severed genitals.
 
Spymaster said:
...

You're barking up the wrong tree here regarding s41.

There is a view here that the new evidence should never have been admitted IN LAW. The poster who is most vocal about that has hung his whole argument on it and conceded that the second trial jury's verdict was understandable given the admission of the new evidence, but the original guilty verdict would never have been quashed, thus no second trial, if the evidence weren't admitted. "No shit?" I hear you say.

So this argument is that the appellate judges got the law wrong.

They didn't.

The relevant bit of section 41 is section 3 (c) which allows the introduction of a complainants sexual behaviour if:



So if it's similar to that alleged by the defendant and took place at more or less the same time.

Kieron Vaughan (for Evans) argued that the the behaviour described by the witnesses was indeed similar. It referred to X taking control, adopting a specific position, and using specific words. People have argued that many people enjoy sex in certain positions, take control, and use certain words. That's true, and Ms Laws (for the prosecution) raised this, pointing out that such behaviour was not unusual. Trouble is, that's not the point. Section 41 does not require the behaviour to be UNUSUAL. It requires the behaviour to be SIMILAR. Vaughan argued that each of these behaviours individually were SIMILAR to what Evans had described, each alone satisfying the requirement, but taken cumulatively they could also reasonably be considered to be beyond coincidence (see section 58 of the appeal transcript).

The judges agreed with Vaughan, in that respect the law was satisfied.

The judges also considered the spirit of the law. That is that sexual behaviour should be excluded if any part of its purpose is to traduce the character of the defendant, which would prevent other victims coming forward, and "to counter the twin myths that unchaste women are more likely to consent to intercourse, and in any event are less worthy of belief".

That's not the case here. As the judges themselves noted very strongly, this has absolutely no bearing on the character of X because she hadn't made any accusations of rape or commented on consent herself.

So the law was good.
...
Click to expand...

Spymaster said:
To be clear, my current position is that the case shouldn't have been brought in the first place, and that the CofA shouldn't have allowed the new evidence that led to the second.
Click to expand...
from: farewell tara palmer-tomkinson

My emphasis.


I'm glad to see that you've had a complete and utter u-turn on this, Spymaster.
 
Just had a quick search and it seems Wilder has been keeping his cards close to his chest, re Evans since November! :facepalm:
 
Even speaking as a Wednesday fan, this seems spectacularly poor judgment from the United board.

They've just won their league at a canter and they're going to blow that positive vibe / PR / whatever, on a player that's clearly not the same as he was 6 years ago and is likely to implode under the spotlight and (deserved) abuse coming his way.
 
Corax said:
I dunno. It 'feels' wrong, but does that mean I'm saying anyone accused of a sex crime should only be allowed to work in the salt mines thereafter? I can't find a mental foothold on this one.
Click to expand...

he was aquitted during an appeal trial in which the womans(who didn't even bring the case) sexual history was allowed to be presented as evidence. It amounted to 'she likes it rough'

him and his mrs are mining salt CTR
 
The Octagon said:
Even speaking as a Wednesday fan, this seems spectacularly poor judgment from the United board.

They've just won their league at a canter and they're going to blow that positive vibe / PR / whatever, on a player that's clearly not the same as he was 6 years ago and is likely to implode under the spotlight and (deserved) abuse coming his way.
Click to expand...
From a footballing point of view it's weird. He's not been that good at Chesterfield who have just been relegated from the division United have finished top of.

Was somebody on a promise to sign him once he'd put in a few months relatively away from the spotlight?
 
JTG said:
From a footballing point of view it's weird. He's not been that good at Chesterfield who have just been relegated from the division United have finished top of.

Was somebody on a promise to sign him once he'd put in a few months relatively away from the spotlight?
Click to expand...

Seems to be the prevailing theory, this has been in the works for a while, Chesterfield take the initial heat and then make £500,000 on a player who's barely done anything for them.

All a bit sordid to say the least.
 
Broadly agreeing with JTG -- I can scarcely believe that Sheffield United really think the scumbag can be much of an asset to them any more :confused:

Teams going up to the Championship should be looking for discards from teams who've just been promoted to Premier, discards who are still good and can score goals, but discards from promoted teams who can now afford better/bigger players, or fringe players from established teams in their own (new) League ....

And/or try to buy players from teams who've just missed out on a playoff promotion and who now want to spend and strengthen for another promotion shot next time.

Etc, etc.

Instead of buying shit, injury-prone** scumbags who will bring nothing but grief to the club publicity wise and otherwise.

**Not necessarily just on the pitch either ;)
 
Last edited:
Good insight. Getting an actual Sheffield United fan to comment's a good move -- and he's clearly very anti-Evans himself, thankfully.

What utter arseholes there seem to be among their fanbase and in the management/ownership. Fucking idiots :mad:
 
Interesting bit in that story about the Attorney General suggesting that what happened in this case could prompt a change in the law to prevent victims' sexual histories being used in that way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

HeAthen
BBC accused of antisemitism
2 3 4
Replies
98
Views
4K
ska invita
ska invita
hitmouse
Rotten behaviour from Hello Fresh
Replies
2
Views
353
elbows
elbows
Pickman's model
Members of Britain's richest family get prison sentences
Replies
12
Views
755
stavros
S
NoXion
Porridge and crumpets included on extensive list of foods banned from TV ads before 9pm
2 3 4
Replies
95
Views
2K
Happy Tree
Happy Tree
Buddy Bradley
How long before we get a proper Tory-style sleaze gaffe from Labour?
Replies
0
Views
224
Buddy Bradley
Buddy Bradley
Back
Top Bottom