He looks like a rather dashing but untrustworthy spivYou must log in or register to see media
What about presumption of innocence & the maxim innocent until proven guilty?
You don't get proven innocent, you are found not guilty of the crime of which you were accused.
I've not heard any recordings and am not interested in listening to them now, however, the presumption of innocence having being said, I find it difficult to understand how consent could have been deemed to have been established when, in court, Ched Evans admitted that he did not speak to the woman before, during or after sex.
It is cases like this that make me think that the English juries should have the same options as in Scotland, to find a person Guilty, Not Guilty or to find that the case is Not Proven.
Last September The Scottish Government said that it would be introducing a bill to abolish the 'Not Proven' verdict in its courts.
Not Proven is basically we know you did it.
And I can't see it going any time soon bearing in mind who Police Scotland are likely to come knocking for in the near future.
I did jury service in January and one of the cases I was put on was rape and sexual assault. In this case the rape charge was Incredibly hard to prove, it was a woman accusing her then husband of raping her 6 years ago. He said it was consensual, she said it wasn't, but they remained married for several years (happily so they both said) and the allegation was only made when a custody dispute started over the kids. He was found not guilty on that charge.
The sexual assault charge just showed to me how odd the law can be. He basically stuck his finger up her arse when she was passed out drunk on the kitchen floor, sniffed his fingers and said to her mate "look she ****ing stinks". There was a witness so it was pretty obvious he did it, but in his directions the judge told us that if we thought he did it to humiliate his wife, and not for sexual gratification, then we must find him not guilty. Not guilty it was.

Quite rightly accusations of the awful assaults of rape and sexual abuse need to be taken seriously and a police investigation take place.
However the conviction rate for these crimes is abysmal... around 1 or 2 % iirc.
I guess its a she said, he said?
A few years back some women staff at the golf club, brought a 'handsie' charge against a prominent member... he was ex durham police and strangely enough durham police found no case against him.
Bloke next to me went into a fit of giggles, had to pretend he was coughing. The defendant was also asked about windmilling and asked if he knew what that was. When he replied "Aye waving yer cock aroond" there was a round of audible tittering in the court

Just as Johnson's sexual abuse of a minor, proved a huge distraction for the players, club and fans... I fear the same with Diamond (although atm we do know what the actual charges are).
There has been a couple of good stories about the, fans CPR, and Ballard earphones.
But this latest siht story just means the players, club and fans will take a lot of abuse. I wonder if we will hear any chants tonight.
At least the powers at the club are taking swift action, unlike last time.
The fact he’s hardly played any first team games and hasn’t been at the club for a while I can’t see how anyone would be flinging **** at Sunderland tbf!
that and the fact he wasn’t a very good player anyways. Obvs the scum will have there say because there obsessed with us.
I did jury service in January and one of the cases I was put on was rape and sexual assault. In this case the rape charge was Incredibly hard to prove, it was a woman accusing her then husband of raping her 6 years ago. He said it was consensual, she said it wasn't, but they remained married for several years (happily so they both said) and the allegation was only made when a custody dispute started over the kids. He was found not guilty on that charge.
The sexual assault charge just showed to me how odd the law can be. He basically stuck his finger up her arse when she was passed out drunk on the kitchen floor, sniffed his fingers and said to her mate "look she ****ing stinks". There was a witness so it was pretty obvious he did it, but in his directions the judge told us that if we thought he did it to humiliate his wife, and not for sexual gratification, then we must find him not guilty. Not guilty it was.

Don't disagree.Sounds like a lovely household
I'd lock them all up tbh ...
... the woman's smashed out of her face lying on the kitchen floor, the husband is fingering her dirty arse and the friend is sitting there watching this horror show.
Absolutely dreadful waste of taxpayers money allowing wasters like these to go to court.
Don't disagree.
In my two weeks I sat on two trials, the second was a particularly brutal domestic abuse case. In both cases the central theme was alcohol dependency which doesn't excuse anything but opened my eyes.
My jury service, sat on one trial. Possession with intent to supply, bloke had pleaded guilty to possession but was on trial for possession with intent.
As it started and I heard the two barristers telling us what the evidence was going to show I was thinking going to find this bloke guilty. He had a decent amount of crack on him when lifted.
Then as I sat through the trial the police had been lazy and had not bothered gathering obvious evidence or asking him obvious things in interview which the defence then used it to build doubt. We found him not guilty and it still pisses me off as I argued strongly that he wasn't guilty as it wasn't beyond reasonable doubt and that's what the law requires but I was 99% sure he was dealing!
