[Snowflake McBedwetter]

Cheshunt Spireite, on 25 July 2016 - 08:57 PM, said:

Matter of perspective in regard to suffering. Yes, Evans did 3yrs and has the mark forever. Even if he's deemed as innocent at trial he'll carry it. That's unfortunate but it's the way society works- they remember the short and negative (it's what the press thrive on). But he will be able to rebuild. He can, as he's showing, go back to his chosen career, get married, go out where he wants and see who he wants. The girl hasn't just changed her name, she's changed it multiple times under police assistance because supporters of Evans (cousins of his have been convicted for it) keep going for her. She doesn't have the option to see who she wants, I believe only her father knows where she is. She has, due to the persecution and fear of others, been denied what I would argue is the right to a normal life. It's dependent on what you feel is more restrictive. I will note that if he is found guilty then he will suffer from the conviction for the rest of his life, as I believe is right.

, and it's an example of why I wrote my original post. People lie, that's fact, gender doesn't matter. There's an equally strong possibility Evans is lying, his evidence wasn't strong enough in the first case so it's not unreasonable to assume he's told a fair few in this case. No, it's not illegal to be a sleazebag and I agree it shouldn't be. However, there is a line between being a sleazebag and committing a criminal offence. I partially disagree with your statement about not punishing people for immoral acts as that's the entire basis of criminal law, but agree that general opinion shouldn't decide the sentence in cases. However, you assuThe first line of your third paragraph is one of the worst things I've read in the discussions on Evansme that Evans is innocent. There is a chance he will be found guilty and it won't be because of public opinion, it'll be because under the current laws he committed a crime. You have the right to disagree with the current laws as much as someone else has the right to support them.

Not trying to attack you, but curious; if he is found guilty again will you agree with the courts decision?

I didn't agree with the first one. For one simple, and (should be) blindingly obvious reason.

It was the duty of the judge to tell the jury that unless they were convinced beyond reasonable doubt that the woman in question hadn't consented then they must find Evans not guilty.

As the woman admitted to having no knowledge as to whether she consented or not this was impossible. It should never have gone to court in the first place, but certainly after the first of the two men was acquitted, then i see no reasonable case to make for Evans's guilt.

Re- morals. The law is about causing actual loss or harm to others. Plenty of immoral actions are not covered by law. And nor should they be. Morals are subjective.

As to your line about mine being the worst thing you have read... I'll go no further in the interests of maintaining civility.

And while you're concerning yourself about issues of morality. Try thinking of the moral implications of getting drunk enough to have no memory (if you believe that 3 an a half times over DD limit would wipe your memory, permanently) then dragging 2 people through the courts and seeing one of them stigmatised for life, and jailed because of something that MIGHT have happened. In my opinion, there was nothing 'moral' going on in that hotel room. From either party. Nor anything unlawful.

*My last comment on the matter pre-trial btw.

[Elmer Fudd's Thick Lip]

KevinArnottsGoldenBoot, on 26 July 2016 - 04:53 PM, said:

I didn't agree with the first one. For one simple, and (should be) blindingly obvious reason.

It was the duty of the judge to tell the jury that unless they were convinced beyond reasonable doubt that the woman in question hadn't consented then they must find Evans not guilty.

As the woman admitted to having no knowledge as to whether she consented or not this was impossible. It should never have gone to court in the first place, but certainly after the first of the two men was acquitted, then i see no reasonable case to make for Evans's guilt.

Re- morals. The law is about causing actual loss or harm to others. Plenty of immoral actions are not covered by law. And nor should they be. Morals are subjective.

As to your line about mine being the worst thing you have read... I'll go no further in the interests of maintaining civility.

And while you're concerning yourself about issues of morality. Try thinking of the moral implications of getting drunk enough to have no memory (if you believe that 3 an a half times over DD limit would wipe your memory, permanently) then dragging 2 people through the courts and seeing one of them stigmatised for life, and jailed because of something that MIGHT have happened. In my opinion, there was nothing 'moral' going on in that hotel room. From either party. Nor anything unlawful.

*My last comment on the matter pre-trial btw.

Good post.

[Spire-Power]

Rodney, on 25 July 2016 - 07:20 AM, said:

It's the CPS who decide if there's enough evidence to secure a conviction.Unfortunately people like Alison Saunders will jump at any chance even on the flimsiest of evidence to try and get a conviction.Now if you mean the accusers then it seems ok to accuse on a whim without any fear of prosecution yet the alledged perpetrator can be named have their lives ruined and have to carry the stigma even before a conviction is secured

I meant CPS lawyers. The stigma can continue even after defendants are acquitted, and CE may well be be abused all his playing days if he 'wins' his re-trial. I accept the main motive for opposing fans is to put him off his game and gain some advantage for their team, but sad to see some of our own fans are so narrow-minded. Defendants facing sex charges should imo not be named until found guilty, which I think used to be the law here but may be wrong on that.

[Spire-Power]

Westbars Spireite, on 24 July 2016 - 06:59 AM, said:

Has that bloke got nothing better to do?

Sad act.

Makes you wonder if something in some way relevant to all this happened in his life. Probably good advice to steer clear of women who wazz in shop doorways though.

[dim view]

KevinArnottsGoldenBoot, on 26 July 2016 - 04:53 PM, said:

*My last comment on the matter pre-trial btw.

probably a good idea as it's drivel..
The judge did do his duty yet the jury still found him guilty. It is clearly not impossible to reach that conclusion even though the woman had no opinion on the matter.

The woman didn't drag 2 people through court.

[Snowflake McBedwetter]

dim view, on 26 July 2016 - 10:06 PM, said:

probably a good idea as it's drivel..
The judge did do his duty yet the jury still found him guilty. It is clearly not impossible to reach that conclusion even though the woman had no opinion on the matter.

The woman didn't drag 2 people through court.

It always tickles me that your view is consistently dim.

[Elmer Fudd's Thick Lip]

dim view, on 26 July 2016 - 10:06 PM, said:

probably a good idea as it's drivel..
The judge did do his duty yet the jury still found him guilty. It is clearly not impossible to reach that conclusion even though the woman had no opinion on the matter.

The woman didn't drag 2 people through court.

The Judge you say did his job, 'led' the jury. I wouldn't say that's doing his duty tbh.

[dim view]

KevinArnottsGoldenBoot, on 26 July 2016 - 10:49 PM, said:

It always tickles me that your view is consistently dim.

sorry, it's a touchy subject. One of those where ill thought out comments don't help.

Under British Law, it's clearly not impossible for a guilty verdict to be reached even though the alleged rape victim keeps mum. You said it should be.

The police dragged the 2 men through court, not the woman.

[Town_Fan]

The police and cps clearly wanted a high profile result in this case and all that has happened is 2 lives have been ruined rather than any semblance of justice taking place.

To me the most telling thing to come out of this is a reason people shouldn't cooperate with the police. 2 blokes happily cooperate in the investigation of a missing bag and then suddenly they are on trial for rape. Hoisted by their own petard so to speak.

I'd love to know the skeletons in the closet of those who continue to berate Evans behaviour.

It's English law by the way. No such thing as British law per se.

[dim view]

Town_Fan, on 28 July 2016 - 10:24 AM, said:

The police and cps clearly wanted a high profile result in this case and all that has happened is 2 lives have been ruined rather than any semblance of justice taking place.

To me the most telling thing to come out of this is a reason people shouldn't cooperate with the police. 2 blokes happily cooperate in the investigation of a missing bag and then suddenly they are on trial for rape. Hoisted by their own petard so to speak.

I'd love to know the skeletons in the closet of those who continue to berate Evans behaviour.

It's English law by the way. No such thing as British law per se.

sorry.

Any road up, do you happen to know whether members of the public wanting to attend court have to apply for a seat, just turn up and queue, or what?

I'm so intrigued to know what the new defence evidence is, and the prosecution arguments are, that I'm seriously thinking of going. As I mull it over, I can't think of any possible prosecution argument which will stand scrutiny. Never done it before so I think a visit will be interesting in itself. I know, 'saddo'.

[Town_Fan]

dim view, on 28 July 2016 - 10:43 AM, said:

sorry.

Any road up, do you happen to know whether members of the public wanting to attend court have to apply for a seat, just turn up and queue, or what?

I'm so intrigued to know what the new defence evidence is, and the prosecution arguments are, that I'm seriously thinking of going. As I mull it over, I can't think of any possible prosecution argument which will stand scrutiny. Never done it before so I think a visit will be interesting in itself. I know, 'saddo'.

In theory you can just turn up but I would imagine with high profile cases there would be some sort of system in place to either limit numbers to what's available in the gallery or prevent on lookers at all.

I read in a tech blog some courts were looking at live streaming cases where public interest was high.

Maybe Pete could shed a little more light.

[calvin plummers socks]

Town_Fan, on 28 July 2016 - 12:33 PM, said:

In theory you can just turn up but I would imagine with high profile cases there would be some sort of system in place to either limit numbers to what's available in the gallery or prevent on lookers at all.

I read in a tech blog some courts were looking at live streaming cases where public interest was high.

Maybe Pete could shed a little more light.

Yep many cases are not accessible to public gallery.
Or spaces are reserved for media/family etc depending on space.

The Old Bailey has limited space and not easy to get to public viewing there

[moondog]

dim view, on 28 July 2016 - 10:43 AM, said:

sorry.

Any road up, do you happen to know whether members of the public wanting to attend court have to apply for a seat, just turn up and queue, or what?

I'm so intrigued to know what the new defence evidence is, and the prosecution arguments are, that I'm seriously thinking of going. As I mull it over, I can't think of any possible prosecution argument which will stand scrutiny. Never done it before so I think a visit will be interesting in itself. I know, 'saddo'.

You could always ring Cardiff Crown Court and ask

[Zorro]

dim view, on 28 July 2016 - 10:43 AM, said:

sorry.

Any road up, do you happen to know whether members of the public wanting to attend court have to apply for a seat, just turn up and queue, or what?

I'm so intrigued to know what the new defence evidence is, and the prosecution arguments are, that I'm seriously thinking of going. As I mull it over, I can't think of any possible prosecution argument which will stand scrutiny. Never done it before so I think a visit will be interesting in itself. I know, 'saddo'.

Sorry, I can't understand how someone would want to travel from here to Cardiff to listen to any new evidence or arguments. Curiosity is one thing but that's stretching it too far. It will all come out after the case, you being there would make no difference to the outcome. Perhaps the court should sell tickets, isn't that what they do at a circus?

The mind boggles

[longeatonspireite]

calvin plummers socks, on 28 July 2016 - 12:34 PM, said:

Yep many cases are not accessible to public gallery.
Or spaces are reserved for media/family etc depending on space.

The Old Bailey has limited space and not easy to get to public viewing there

Yes anyone who is not involved in the case can sit in, providing there is public access..and room/seats.

[dim view]

Zorro, on 28 July 2016 - 12:43 PM, said:

Sorry, I can't understand how someone would want to travel from here to Cardiff to listen to any new evidence or arguments. Curiosity is one thing but that's stretching it too far. It will all come out after the case, you being there would make no difference to the outcome. Perhaps the court should sell tickets, isn't that what they do at a circus?

The mind boggles

It's summat I've never done. I don't think it necessarily does all come out after the case. What was the prosecution's successful argument that secured the conviction in the first trial?

Me being anywhere makes no difference to any outcomes. I'm a nobody.

[Cheshunt Spireite]

It's still very concerning that the woman is being attacked here. I don't know if Evans is innocent, tbh I don't really care. He's too high profile to do anything as stupid as get in a similar position again so isn't a danger to society. Everyone deserves a second chance if they show remorse, and one of the problems Evans has had is that it took him so long to show remorse of any sort (even for planning on cheating on his girlfriend). He has the right to maintain his innocence, but went about it in a way that attacked the girl instead of the system.

If you are unsure of something, you go to the proper authority. If it's your gas you go to your gas company, your car it's the mechanic. If you think you might have been attacked you go to the police- no ifs, buts or maybes. That's your right as a citizen and common sense for anyone over the age of 2.

It should be illegal to name either side in a rape case, as both are in danger for being linked. Evans cousins and several others knew they were breaking a law designed to protect the woman and were rightly punished. It's likely he has family members reading this forum, doesn't matter. Break the law, get punished, very simple.

The question of whether the CPS and police wanted someone high profile is interesting. It's useful to make an example of people, show that your status doesn't matter if you break the law, however all the appeals failed and they are costly. Both the police and CPS would want to avoid a very expensive pay out for wrongful imprisonment as their budgets are savagely cut so the risk/reward ratio is way off to make an example of someone like Evans, so despite the conspiracies they almost certainly had legitimate cause.

I mentioned it in a post on another thread, the consent issue is key to all of this and likely heavily related to the technicality his defence team will focus on. It's not black and white, she said yes or she said no. Consent is VERY complicated. It has factors such as was she in a fit and proper state to give consent (how drunk/drugged up was she), was she fearful of saying no, was she pressured in anyway, was she fully conscious? There's been talk about how much alcohol she had but the bottom line is people react differently to it and process it at different rates. She could have been 5x the drink drive limit during the event but reduced to acceptable levels within 12hrs.
Another part of consent is how much had Evans had- if he was relatively sober was he in a position to take advantage? That would damage his defence badly if so.

At this point in time the club is being laughed at. Our running is massively questionable, can't even organise a raffle, signed a player that we said publicly only a few months ago we would never sign. However the talk about the woman being a money grabber, saying she should be persecuted, an absolute defence of Evans and vitriolic attacks on the girl in the same sentence- it's unbelievable. Some people have made it clear that they can't see how he has done anything, even morally, wrong. Call me soft, a moron, scum, I don't care. It is undeniable that the woman has suffered very heavily. It is undeniable that Evans has refused to condemn the illegal attacks by his family on her, or that it took him until last year to show even the faintest signs of remorse.

I will support the team, go to the games, cheer the goals. Honestly not sure what my reaction to Evans will be on the stands, probably muted. I support Chesterfield Football Club, this is just an ugly distraction and another excuse for the fans to turn against each other.

[hilly81]

Cheshunt Spireite, on 28 July 2016 - 01:01 PM, said:

It's still very concerning that the woman is being attacked here. I don't know if Evans is innocent, tbh I don't really care. He's too high profile to do anything as stupid as get in a similar position again so isn't a danger to society. Everyone deserves a second chance if they show remorse, and one of the problems Evans has had is that it took him so long to show remorse of any sort (even for planning on cheating on his girlfriend). He has the right to maintain his innocence, but went about it in a way that attacked the girl instead of the system.

If you are unsure of something, you go to the proper authority. If it's your gas you go to your gas company, your car it's the mechanic. If you think you might have been attacked you go to the police- no ifs, buts or maybes. That's your right as a citizen and common sense for anyone over the age of 2.

It should be illegal to name either side in a rape case, as both are in danger for being linked. Evans cousins and several others knew they were breaking a law designed to protect the woman and were rightly punished. It's likely he has family members reading this forum, doesn't matter. Break the law, get punished, very simple.

The question of whether the CPS and police wanted someone high profile is interesting. It's useful to make an example of people, show that your status doesn't matter if you break the law, however all the appeals failed and they are costly. Both the police and CPS would want to avoid a very expensive pay out for wrongful imprisonment as their budgets are savagely cut so the risk/reward ratio is way off to make an example of someone like Evans, so despite the conspiracies they almost certainly had legitimate cause.

I mentioned it in a post on another thread, the consent issue is key to all of this and likely heavily related to the technicality his defence team will focus on. It's not black and white, she said yes or she said no. Consent is VERY complicated. It has factors such as was she in a fit and proper state to give consent (how drunk/drugged up was she), was she fearful of saying no, was she pressured in anyway, was she fully conscious? There's been talk about how much alcohol she had but the bottom line is people react differently to it and process it at different rates. She could have been 5x the drink drive limit during the event but reduced to acceptable levels within 12hrs.
Another part of consent is how much had Evans had- if he was relatively sober was he in a position to take advantage? That would damage his defence badly if so.

At this point in time the club is being laughed at. Our running is massively questionable, can't even organise a raffle, signed a player that we said publicly only a few months ago we would never sign. However the talk about the woman being a money grabber, saying she should be persecuted, an absolute defence of Evans and vitriolic attacks on the girl in the same sentence- it's unbelievable. Some people have made it clear that they can't see how he has done anything, even morally, wrong. Call me soft, a moron, scum, I don't care. It is undeniable that the woman has suffered very heavily. It is undeniable that Evans has refused to condemn the illegal attacks by his family on her, or that it took him until last year to show even the faintest signs of remorse.

I will support the team, go to the games, cheer the goals. Honestly not sure what my reaction to Evans will be on the stands, probably muted. I support Chesterfield Football Club, this is just an ugly distraction and another excuse for the fans to turn against each other.

This is a great post and pretty much sums up where I am on the whole thing.

[Goku]

Cheshunt Spireite, on 28 July 2016 - 01:01 PM, said:

However the talk about the woman being a money grabber, saying she should be persecuted, an absolute defence of Evans and vitriolic attacks on the girl in the same sentence- it's unbelievable. Some people have made it clear that they can't see how he has done anything, even morally, wrong. Call me soft, a moron, scum, I don't care. It is undeniable that the woman has suffered very heavily. It is undeniable that Evans has refused to condemn the illegal attacks by his family on her, or that it took him until last year to show even the faintest signs of remorse.

Can't disagree with that. As it happens, you're on a football forum full of elderly men who will allow their internalised misogyny to rise to the fore. Victim-blaming is very prevalent in this society, especially towards females.

[azul]

Cheshunt Spireite, on 28 July 2016 - 01:01 PM, said:

It's still very concerning that the woman is being attacked here. I don't know if Evans is innocent, tbh I don't really care. He's too high profile to do anything as stupid as get in a similar position again so isn't a danger to society. Everyone deserves a second chance if they show remorse, and one of the problems Evans has had is that it took him so long to show remorse of any sort (even for planning on cheating on his girlfriend). He has the right to maintain his innocence, but went about it in a way that attacked the girl instead of the system.

If you are unsure of something, you go to the proper authority. If it's your gas you go to your gas company, your car it's the mechanic. If you think you might have been attacked you go to the police- no ifs, buts or maybes. That's your right as a citizen and common sense for anyone over the age of 2.

It should be illegal to name either side in a rape case, as both are in danger for being linked. Evans cousins and several others knew they were breaking a law designed to protect the woman and were rightly punished. It's likely he has family members reading this forum, doesn't matter. Break the law, get punished, very simple.

The question of whether the CPS and police wanted someone high profile is interesting. It's useful to make an example of people, show that your status doesn't matter if you break the law, however all the appeals failed and they are costly. Both the police and CPS would want to avoid a very expensive pay out for wrongful imprisonment as their budgets are savagely cut so the risk/reward ratio is way off to make an example of someone like Evans, so despite the conspiracies they almost certainly had legitimate cause.

I mentioned it in a post on another thread, the consent issue is key to all of this and likely heavily related to the technicality his defence team will focus on. It's not black and white, she said yes or she said no. Consent is VERY complicated. It has factors such as was she in a fit and proper state to give consent (how drunk/drugged up was she), was she fearful of saying no, was she pressured in anyway, was she fully conscious? There's been talk about how much alcohol she had but the bottom line is people react differently to it and process it at different rates. She could have been 5x the drink drive limit during the event but reduced to acceptable levels within 12hrs.
Another part of consent is how much had Evans had- if he was relatively sober was he in a position to take advantage? That would damage his defence badly if so.

At this point in time the club is being laughed at. Our running is massively questionable, can't even organise a raffle, signed a player that we said publicly only a few months ago we would never sign. However the talk about the woman being a money grabber, saying she should be persecuted, an absolute defence of Evans and vitriolic attacks on the girl in the same sentence- it's unbelievable. Some people have made it clear that they can't see how he has done anything, even morally, wrong. Call me soft, a moron, scum, I don't care. It is undeniable that the woman has suffered very heavily. It is undeniable that Evans has refused to condemn the illegal attacks by his family on her, or that it took him until last year to show even the faintest signs of remorse.

I will support the team, go to the games, cheer the goals. Honestly not sure what my reaction to Evans will be on the stands, probably muted. I support Chesterfield Football Club, this is just an ugly distraction and another excuse for the fans to turn against each other.

Again, well summed up

As far as your last paragraph is concerned when the announcer gave him the 'big introduction" at the Derby game the reception was incredibly muted. When he came off he got much more applause though not as much as O'Shea who came off straight afterwards.

I think he'll eventually win over the majority of the audiance. Personally I wish we had never gone there, but we have, so we better get used to it and any abuse that follows. One thing for sure, if he'd resigned for Sheffield we'd be dishing it out