Soldato
- Joined
- 24 Aug 2006
- Posts
- 10,113
- Location
- Gibraltar
Nope as he was found guilty. If his appeal is successful then anyone saying he is still a rapist can be sued. He still is a convicted rapist.
Ched Evans
- Thread starter Ricochet J
- Start date
Nope as he was found guilty. If his appeal is successful then anyone saying he is still a rapist can be sued. He still is a convicted rapist.
Soldato
- Joined
- 24 Aug 2006
- Posts
- 10,113
- Location
- Gibraltar
Why? He got found guilty at the end of the day. So until the appeal a dirty rapist.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
He may have done it, she may have said no and resisted the entire time but she doesn't know, only he does there isn't the slightest shred of evidence she was raped.
She can say yes, but it doesn't count because she's drunk. But the guy, also drunk has the responsibility to know how drunk she is. The original decision was based on personal morality and placating feminists, nothing else, absolutely not law and certainly not close to without a doubt.
The first rule was an abomination of a decision regardless of if he did rape her or not. We aren't supposed to send people to jail or find them guilty with no freaking evidence, just because we personally morally disagree with how he acted.
She can say yes, but it doesn't count because she's drunk. But the guy, also drunk has the responsibility to know how drunk she is. The original decision was based on personal morality and placating feminists, nothing else, absolutely not law and certainly not close to without a doubt.
The first rule was an abomination of a decision regardless of if he did rape her or not. We aren't supposed to send people to jail or find them guilty with no freaking evidence, just because we personally morally disagree with how he acted.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 29 Mar 2003
- Posts
- 57,333
- Location
- Stoke on Trent
I think elmuzzy confused you with the last sentence and should have wrote
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 29 Mar 2003
- Posts
- 57,333
- Location
- Stoke on Trent
I can't think of his name but there was that weird bloke the media hounded who they thought had killed his female tenant and he got a payout however, unlike Ched Evans, he wasn't found guilty by a jury.
Evans won his appeal to overturn his conviction and a retrial has been ordered:
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/apr/21/ched-evans-wins-appeal-against-conviction
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/apr/21/ched-evans-wins-appeal-against-conviction
blimey he will be in line for some serious compo if he is found not guilty at the new trial . loss of earnings ?? he was on a reportedly 20k per week wage at bramall lane not to mention time in the nick.
Last edited:
I hope that IF he's found innocent in the new trial, the woman who accused him is sued for an extortionate amount and is locked away for a few years so her life is ruined. Women like that are absolute scum
Have to be careful there. A not guilty verdict doesn't mean she's lied or that he didn't do it, just that there wasn't enough evidence to prove beyond doubt that he did.
Yep. I'm a strong believer that false rape claims by women should receive the same punishment the man would have received if he actually did rape her.
And yes as Baz said that would only be if it was proven she lied, not if there is just insufficient evidence to prove guilt
How are you going to prove that someone falsely accused someone ?
Sure, I get that. But if it comes to light that she lied that my statement stands, because unfortunately, it happens far too much
With evidence in court?