You forgot the link. Just to clarify, the initial comment of mine that you jumped in to argue with was; You replied; Asking for a sentence, be it reduced or otherwise, would be pointless if there was no verdict of guilt. Evans opinion of his guilt is meaningless to that circumstance unless he's arguing for a reduction due to a lesser degree of guilt. I'm innocent, so don't lock me up too long is unlikely to sway a Court.
Well Fez, this article is a load of balls http://www.insidetime.co.uk/articleview.asp?a=1878&c=the_right_to_work She didn't know Ched Evans existed until he turned up in the hotel room. The only relevant question is was she too pissed to say yes. The jury found she was. The article you quoted doesn't mention it. It just assumes she consented. The prosecution has to disclose all evidence to the defence. Failure to do so can and does result in a mistrial. Evans didn't include anything in his application for leave to appeal about non disclosure of evidence.
Now if this vid had shown him dragging her in by her hair or carrying her then i'd be inclined to say she was incapably drunk. [video]http://www.chedevans.com/judge-for-yourself[/video]
The jury saw that and decided she was. I wonder why he didn't post the CCTV footage of him watching her sprawled out on a bar floor earlier in the evening or the footage from the kebab shop showing her falling over.
This is the nub of it and always has been; I have always stated what you say must be the case, that he must accept the guilty verdict, it really is a mute point as the law leaves him no other option. Whether or not he accepts that verdict is correct is another matter and that is what you have been trying to say is a must to him making an application for sentence review. Like I said, you have prolonged an unnecessary argument simply for the sake of it. Enough, it's pointless.
I've prolonged bugger all. I made my initial point and stuck to it, and you now say my point stands. You've jumped in and tried to make several other points and then try to claim they're arguments against what I'm saying. At no time have I said he has to accept the verdict is correct, but by definition, he has to accept the guilty verdict exists and has effect or there's no point asking to reduce it. All I asked of you was to post an example of what you claim happening in reality. (btw, it's "moot" point)
You accept there are gaps in your knowledge of the facts, yet, on occasion you have filled those gaps with pointless theory. I have not done that as it is misleading and becomes a diversion from what is actually known. Charlie1 continues to talk about the victim getting very drunk and having taken drugs, putting herself in a very vulnerable position: how much of that is upheld by expert opinion, the same expert opinion that disqualifies drivers? It really does seem that where facts are lacking they are easily guessed at.
How exactly is a man supposed to prove he isn't a rapist? It's illegal to record having sex with someone without their permission, so you can't use that as evidence. It seems the onus is on the man to prove his sexual partner consented, rather than the victim prove he/she didn't consent. What happened to innocent before proven guilty?
When I said that he might get a contract and the training was testing the water. You said I was making it up. Nigel Clough then admits they were considering offering him a contract. That's is why the offer of training got the response it did from Sheffield United's patrons. The Judge's direction was questioned when his leave to appeal was considered. The quotes in the court transcript basically says, the judge said: if she was drunk and agreed to do something that she wouldn't normally do that isn't rape. If she's too drunk to know what's she's doing she cannot consent and that is rape. I don't see anything wrong with that do you?
Many illegal things are admissible in evidence otherwise nobody would ever be convicted. The onus is on the man, yes, that is the law. Before you shag somebody you should know they are agreeable to you doing so. Seems fair to me.
And what if someone makes a false rape allegation? How exactly are you supposed to prove he/she consented?
Exactly, it seems some are happy for the innocent to be convicted, just as long as it makes sure the guilty are also convicted. Not good enough for me.
Different in each case. Have a google and see how many allegations lead to prosecution and how many prosecutions lead to conviction.
For me, that's the big irony of this case. I think that there have been many terrible rape cases that have never made it to court and many others where the guilty have got off, yet this seemingly weak one has been successful.
