[dim view]

azul, on 16 October 2016 - 11:39 AM, said:

If refused he could take his case to the High Court, but I think the test of innocence would be the same. That would be like going throught the trial again but with the ground rules dramatically changed. Suing his lawyers might be the more lucrative and slightly less onerous.

In my opinion, there's another really interesting aspect to it all.

This judge allowed the woman's sexual appetite to be divulged and lot's of groups have objected. Did this sway the jury or was the simple key point, as the defence lawyer pointed out in her summing up, that the take away video had been misinterpreted. The woman had fallen over not because she was incapable, but because she had had a few and she was wearing ridiculous high heels.

If the original judge or the original defence failed to point this out, then they have been negligent.

Bringing new evidence in was the only way to get a retrial, but it was not crucial and would not have been needed if the rules for retrials had been different.

[Snowflake McBedwetter]

Goku, on 16 October 2016 - 07:06 AM, said:

http://www.dailymail...y-directly.html

Direct quote from Evans - 'she never said anybody raped her'.

Yet she went along with a process that saw a man jailed for 2 and a half years and become a national pariah.

She was the complainant. The instigator of the case. Whether this is because she was horrifically advised and directed, or for some other naive , or nefarious reason we do not know. But please let's put this to bed now.

Complainant >> Police >> CPS >> Court... that is how the system works.

[Westbars Spireite]

KevinArnottsGoldenBoot, on 16 October 2016 - 12:59 PM, said:

Yet she went along with a process that saw a man jailed for 2 and a half years and become a national pariah.

She was the complainant. The instigator of the case. Whether this is because she was horrifically advised and directed, or for some other naive , or nefarious reason we do not know. But please let's put this to bed now.

Complainant >> Police >> CPS >> Court... that is how the system works.

Er, no.

It's been confirmed by someone with far greater knowledge than you or I that the CPS can proceed with or without the agreement of any alleged victim.

[Snowflake McBedwetter]

Westbars Spireite, on 16 October 2016 - 01:13 PM, said:

Er, no.

It's been confirmed by someone with far greater knowledge than you or I that the CPS can proceed with or without the agreement of any alleged victim.

It has been stated that in 'exceptional' circumstances the CPS can CONTINUE the process if the COMPLAINANT withdraws their complaint. Thus, the process would have to get to the CPS before they could proceed. This means, that for it to get to the attention of the CPS the initial process of 'Complainant >> Police' has to have occurred.

It's not complicated.

This post has been edited by KevinArnottsGoldenBoot: 16 October 2016 - 01:25 PM

[Westbars Spireite]

KevinArnottsGoldenBoot, on 16 October 2016 - 01:24 PM, said:

It has been stated that in 'exceptional' circumstances the CPS can CONTINUE the process if the COMPLAINANT withdraws their complaint. Thus, the process would have to get to the CPS before they could proceed. This means, that for it to get to the attention of the CPS the initial process of 'Complainant >> Police' has to have occurred.

It's not complicated.

So I'm right.

What point are you actually trying to make?

[azul]

Evans has morphed into a wishy washy bleeding heart liberal from what I'm reading.

[Ernie Ernie Ernie]

Westbars Spireite, on 16 October 2016 - 01:31 PM, said:

So I'm right.

What point are you actually trying to make?

May as well all just let it go.

We've had the trial, we had the sentence, we had the quashing, we had the re-trial, we've had the verdict. We've got the injury, then he has to play. Hopefully he gets a few goals in the next few months before he's off.

At the end of the day there's no point town fans falling out about it as the debates as we'll all still be here long after he's gone.

Town are merely a conduit to get him back playing. The one thing everyone will agree on is that at best he's way up the sleeze ball scale

[Snowflake McBedwetter]

Westbars Spireite, on 16 October 2016 - 01:31 PM, said:

So I'm right.

What point are you actually trying to make?

No. Part of the point you make is right. But you used it to argue that my point was wrong (that she instigated it), So you are wrong. The fact that the CPS can take over a case is wholly irrelevant (as you well know, as I don't take you for an idiot)as to who instigated the case ( the COMPLAINANT).

I made a point. That she instigated, and pointed out why. You said I was wrong, and claimed i was wrong because the CPS can take over the case at a certain point. Which makes no sense. I've clearly pointed out why.

You can continue trying to point out black is white as long as you like. You're making a fool of yourself. Everything I've said about the case has come to pass. We'll only found out more if Evans seeks compensation, or charges are pressed against the complainant (I doubt that will happen).

[Snowflake McBedwetter]

Ernie Ernie Ernie, on 16 October 2016 - 01:48 PM, said:

May as well all just let it go.

We've had the trial, we had the sentence, we had the quashing, we had the re-trial, we've had the verdict. We've got the injury, then he has to play. Hopefully he gets a few goals in the next few months before he's off.

At the end of the day there's no point town fans falling out about it as the debates as we'll all still be here long after he's gone.

Town are merely a conduit to get him back playing. The one thing everyone will agree on is that at best he's way up the sleeze ball scale

I agree. I'll not comment on this case again. But it would be nice if some people could admit they were wrong once in a while.

Let's get back to arguing about football and the car-crash that our club is fast becoming!

[azul]

Westbars Spireite, on 16 October 2016 - 01:31 PM, said:

So I'm right.

What point are you actually trying to make?

You are wasting your time with this one

[Westbars Spireite]

KevinArnottsGoldenBoot, on 16 October 2016 - 01:49 PM, said:

No. Part of the point you make is right. But you used it to argue that my point was wrong (that she instigated it), So you are wrong. The fact that the CPS can take over a case is wholly irrelevant (as you well know, as I don't take you for an idiot)as to who instigated the case ( the COMPLAINANT).

I made a point. That she instigated, and pointed out why. You said I was wrong, and claimed i was wrong because the CPS can take over the case at a certain point. Which makes no sense. I've clearly pointed out why.

You can continue trying to point out black is white as long as you like. You're making a fool of yourself. Everything I've said about the case has come to pass. We'll only found out more if Evans seeks compensation, or charges are pressed against the complainant (I doubt that will happen).

Does this from the CPS website back your argument?


What happens when a decision is taken to continue with a prosecution against a victim's wishes?

Generally, the more serious the offence (for example, because of the level of violence used or the real and continuing threat to the victim or others), the more likely we are to prosecute in the public interest, even if the victim says they do not wish us to do so.

https://www.cps.gov....n/rape.html#_03

This post has been edited by Westbars Spireite: 16 October 2016 - 02:00 PM

[dim view]

KevinArnottsGoldenBoot, on 16 October 2016 - 01:49 PM, said:

No. Part of the point you make is right. But you used it to argue that my point was wrong (that she instigated it), So you are wrong. The fact that the CPS can take over a case is wholly irrelevant (as you well know, as I don't take you for an idiot)as to who instigated the case ( the COMPLAINANT).

I made a point. That she instigated, and pointed out why. You said I was wrong, and claimed i was wrong because the CPS can take over the case at a certain point. Which makes no sense. I've clearly pointed out why.

You can continue trying to point out black is white as long as you like. You're making a fool of yourself. Everything I've said about the case has come to pass. We'll only found out more if Evans seeks compensation, or charges are pressed against the complainant (I doubt that will happen).

I see you are not arguing that she complained independently. She was seduced into becoming the complainant by North Wales police, so it's debateable who instigated it. If I were her, I would join Ched in suing them. They have made her life a misery.

[Snowflake McBedwetter]

Westbars Spireite, on 16 October 2016 - 01:59 PM, said:

Does this from the CPS website back your argument?


What happens when a decision is taken to continue with a prosecution against a victim's wishes?

Generally, the more serious the offence (for example, because of the level of violence used or the real and continuing threat to the victim or others), the more likely we are to prosecute in the public interest, even if the victim says they do not wish us to do so.

https://www.cps.gov....n/rape.html#_03

To CONTINUE... so the prosecution has to be underway. The CPS ( Crown PROSECUTION Service: the clue is in the title) makes the decision to prosecute AFTER the complainant instigates the process by going to the police. Has it sunk in yet!?

So it has to be started. By the FECKING COMPLAINANT!!! ( 1.a person, group, or company that makes a complaint, as in a legal action.)

That really is my last word. I'm just not going to return, as for some reason I can't stop talking to a brick wall. Which probably says more about me than it does the wall.

This post has been edited by KevinArnottsGoldenBoot: 16 October 2016 - 02:29 PM

[Tylerdurdencfc]

You can make a minor compliant and it lead to a more serious issue as has happened in this case.

At no point did she accuse him of rape so never actually made a compliant against the man himself.

Quote direct from Evans.

“The social media stuff, I don't condone whatsoever. I don't agree with it. It's not been easy for her. I know that. I think it was a situation that got taken out of our hands from an early stage. She never said anybody raped her. “She said she had a blackout but that didn't mean, like it was said in court, that she didn't consent. My behaviour that night was not acceptable - but it wasn't a crime.”

I think that sums it up, both lives been effected and time to let it all drop.

[Westbars Spireite]

KevinArnottsGoldenBoot, on 16 October 2016 - 02:28 PM, said:

To CONTINUE... so the prosecution has to be underway. The CPS ( Crown PROSECUTION Service: the clue is in the title) makes the decision to prosecute AFTER the complainant instigates the process by going to the police. Has it sunk in yet!?

So it has to be started. By the FECKING COMPLAINANT!!! ( 1.a person, group, or company that makes a complaint, as in a legal action.)

That really is my last word. I'm just not going to return, as for some reason I can't stop talking to a brick wall. Which probably says more about me than it does the wall.

Feel free to use my link to find the bit on the CPS website that confirms what you're telling me. I cannot see where it states that there needs to be an initial wish to prosecute from the 'complainant'.

You'll need to forgive my scepticism as I'm starting right at the beginning with this.

[trickytrevsfanclub]

KevinArnottsGoldenBoot, on 16 October 2016 - 02:28 PM, said:

To CONTINUE... so the prosecution has to be underway. The CPS ( Crown PROSECUTION Service: the clue is in the title) makes the decision to prosecute AFTER the complainant instigates the process by going to the police. Has it sunk in yet!?

So it has to be started. By the FECKING COMPLAINANT!!! ( 1.a person, group, or company that makes a complaint, as in a legal action.)

That really is my last word. I'm just not going to return, as for some reason I can't stop talking to a brick wall. Which probably says more about me than it does the wall.

There doesn't have to be ANY complaint from the victim for a case to go ahead. You're misinterpreting the word continue. The victim quite often isn't the one who calls the Police, its often a neighbour who hears something troubling coming from next door or a friend who see's the bruising and is concerned. Even if the victim refuses to confirm anything has happened if there is strong enough evidence from other sources a prosecution can still go ahead without any involvement from the victim.
It doesn't happen often but from personal experience with DV victims the CPS have taken on cases and gained successful convictions against DV perpetrators without the victim ever making any complaint or statement. It's there to protect people who are too scared to make complaints against their abusers.
I still find it hard to believe that the Evans case got as far as a courtroom. The defence in the retrial summed it up for me with lack of memory doesn't mean lack of consent (or words to that effect). There are only 2 people who were present when the incident happened and it isn't hard to believe that perhaps both parties were telling the truth.

This post has been edited by trickytrevsfanclub: 17 October 2016 - 09:24 AM

[Johnnyspireite7]

trickytrevsfanclub, on 17 October 2016 - 09:20 AM, said:

There doesn't have to be ANY complaint from the victim for a case to go ahead. You're misinterpreting the word continue. The victim quite often isn't the one who calls the Police, its often a neighbour who hears something troubling coming from next door or a friend who see's the bruising and is concerned. Even if the victim refuses to confirm anything has happened if there is strong enough evidence from other sources a prosecution can still go ahead without any involvement from the victim.
It doesn't happen often but from personal experience with DV victims the CPS have taken on cases and gained successful convictions against DV perpetrators without the victim ever making any complaint or statement. It's there to protect people who are too scared to make complaints against their abusers.
I still find it hard to believe that the Evans case got as far as a courtroom. The defence in the retrial summed it up for me with lack of memory doesn't mean lack of consent (or words to that effect). There are only 2 people who were present when the incident happened and it isn't hard to believe that perhaps both parties were telling the truth.

Think you'll find there were 3!!!!! (Clayton McDonald was also there!)

[trickytrevsfanclub]

Johnnyspireite7, on 17 October 2016 - 10:23 AM, said:

Think you'll find there were 3!!!!! (Clayton McDonald was also there!)

He was but not for whole incident.

[Zeus]

Heavy_Soul, on 15 October 2016 - 08:41 AM, said:

Anyone notice the hypocrisy of the Suns front page today?

The S*n are well known social justice warriors

azul, on 16 October 2016 - 01:46 PM, said:

Evans has morphed into a wishy washy bleeding heart liberal from what I'm reading.

lol

[Sammy Spireite]

anyone seen this:

https://www.gofundme...lainant-2uj5pv8