Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Accused rapist Ched Evans to be released from prison

that's because it's someone else's responsibility to educate you when you can't be arsed to google?

Yes, in the same way it's your responsibility to pipe up about something that didn't concern you in the first place, something that's already been answered and something all concerned have moved on from :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
The point being, if she posted on FB something along the lines of "had a great night out with Ched Evans and Clayton McDonnell the other night", or similar, it kind of puts the cat amongst the pigeons, doesn't it?

If there was a message along those lines then the police, by not disclosing, would've proper stitched him up. I feel sorry for the woman who didn't want it to go to trial and will now have to relive it all over again. Personally I don't think it should've gone to trial if she was unhappy about it in the first place.

Anyway it's all pure speculation at the moment so not worth going into.
 
If there was a message along those lines then the police, by not disclosing, would've proper stitched him up.
Not if they didn't know about it.

And IF the fresh evidence does regard her FB posts you have to wonder why they were deleted.

But yes. Speculation.
 
rape apologia for money. How deep she holds conviction for the bile she's payed to write doesn't really matter. In the end if you'll take money to think it up and publish then it was in you anyway. Littlejohn syndrome
 
yes it is.

you jumped straight to suggesting that the prosecution was based on false allegation. considering approximately 1% of rapes result in conviction, that's a massive leap and promotes a myth that is hugely damaging to rape victims.
TBF, there was a big "if" in what Spymaster said, but I too thought it was sad that the discussion had moved so swiftly from the outcome of the appeal to the question of whether the victim was liable for prosecution. It's an inevitable question that's bound to get asked, but it could have waited - especially since we have absolutely no idea whether this new evidence implies that she was in any way deceiving anyone in the first place.
 
TBF, there was a big "if" in what Spymaster said, but I too thought it was sad that the discussion had moved so swiftly from the outcome of the appeal to the question of whether the victim was liable for prosecution. It's an inevitable question that's bound to get asked, but it could have waited - especially since we have absolutely no idea whether this new evidence implies that she was in any way deceiving anyone in the first place.
Cheers.

If you look at posts #1946 to #1950 they put my comment into context.
 
The conviction has been quashed, but he still faces prosecution. So, to ask if the victim will be prosecuted if he's acquitted is like asking that question of any victim in any forthcoming rape trial. To my mind, that's a fairly shitty attitude, since an acquittal doesn't mean the victim was lying, and it can only have the effect of deterring victims of rape, who already face an overwhelming uphill struggle. And it's predicated on the vanishingly small number of malicious allegations, the prevalence and significance of which are disproportionately magnified by such comments.
 
The conviction has been quashed, but he still faces prosecution. So, to ask if the victim will be prosecuted if he's acquitted is like asking that question of any victim in any forthcoming rape trial. To my mind, that's a fairly shitty attitude, since an acquittal doesn't mean the victim was lying, and it can only have the effect of deterring victims of rape, who already face an overwhelming uphill struggle. And it's predicated on the vanishingly small number of malicious allegations, the prevalence and significance of which are disproportionately magnified by such comments.
Yes. Except, once again, nobody has asked that.
 
Yes. Except, once again, nobody has asked that.
Whether you meant to or not, that was implied by your comment, which flowed directly from the possibility of an acqittal to the possibility of her prosecution, whilst failing to recognise the myriad of far more likely explanations for this hypothetical 'not guilty' verdict.
 
Whether you meant to or not, that was implied by your comment, which flowed directly from the possibility of an acqittal to the possibility of her prosecution, whilst failing to recognise the myriad of far more likely explanations for this hypothetical 'not guilty' verdict.
Sorry but I disagree.

Bahnhoff stated quite specifically that it was about posts she made on Facebook, as had others.

That being the case it's a perfectly reasonable supposition.
 
Sorry but I disagree.

Bahnhoff stated quite specifically that it was about posts she made on Facebook, as had others.

That being the case it's a perfectly reasonable supposition.

You're speculating about someone else's speculation about a very, very unlikely consequence of a hypothetical acquittal! Such musings have very little value, and are demonstrably harmful, as we know from women who tell of their unwillingness to report rape because of just this sort of thing.
 
You're speculating about someone else's speculation about a very, very unlikely consequence of a hypothetical acquittal! Such musings have very little value, and are demonstrably harmful, as we know from women who tell of their unwillingness to report rape because of just this sort of thing.
No. The assertion seemed authoritative, not speculative.

Read it.
 
If after a re-trial he was found not guilty because of the new evidence and that evidence had been found by the hiring of private investigators I would be very worried indeed - your average Joe can't afford such a luxury and if he was the average joe then he would've been stuck with a criminal record and known as a rapist. However, looking to far ahead.
 
Back
Top Bottom