Talk Morgan Forums Community The Malvern Arms Ched Evans

Really? I thought we still lived in a free country.

Read the court papers on the first trial (public domain). This was an unsafe conviction in my view. Very sad situation and I have huge sympathy for the poor young girl at the centre of this, but too much evidence was ruled inadmissible in the first trial which created bias against the defendant (including, allegedly, a text sent by the girl the next morning to a friend with a shopping list of what she would spend the money on that she thought she would be in line for if she made an allegation).

The law must be properly applied, even if the defendant seems not to be a very nice person.

Meant the comment about the victim being a slag.

Yes, not a very nice word. But should we censor it on the grounds of impoliteness or inaccuracy?

I think the point was amply made without using that word. It's an internet thing. People write with such passion and emotion, but with the benefit of hindsight often re-word.

Problem on here is that the ability to change posts times out after a while & the written words stay unless a moderator is begged to remove them..

This case has a lot of controvertial aspects.
Ched Evans behaviour initially.
Trial by Press.
The discovery of "new" evidence.
Behaviour of the "victim", the girl.
Contradictions in evidence/statements.
Recent high profile celebrity investigations and prosecutions setting the tone.
I was never convinced that the initial conviction was sound. There seemed to be too many vague factors having influence.
Will there be more developments such as compensation?
Will the girl be named now?
A simplistic viewpoint many seem to be voicing is
Ched Evans actions were disgraceful.
The girl has behaved abominably.
Lawyers have been able to manipulate proceedings within the legal framework.
Is our celebrity culture creating precedents that are essentially wrong but increasingly becoming acceptable?

In TM there have been a couple of contentious threads/comments, thankfully few ( unlike Pistonheads!). The ones I have seen are indicative of typing and posting too quickly without thinking of the consequences. Some time ago there was a series of spats between contributors but , thankfully, they were exceptions.
Let's keep the open nature going but think before we press submit.
As for the words used to describe the girl.......
Even if she does have a less than angelic past it doesn't mean that on this occasion she wasn't a victim. A girl of "easy virtue" who on this occasion was attacked? I have used that term not "slag" as it illustrates how words essentially describing the same can have different effects.

Some of the sights I used to see whilst helping my mate collecting commercial waste round Rhyl in the early hours of the morning quite frankly beggared belief!

And they're all entitled to vote!

An acquittal is a failure to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. That the legal system. It is not and never has been proof of innocence.

Only the two involved know what actually happened so best judge neither on here

...but if you are found not guilty, you are (and must be) considered innocent.

It's why I think the Scottish "not proven" is a useful addition to the possible verdicts.

Not guilty of rape.
Guilty of poor moral attitude, behaviour, respect for his fiance and the girl involved.
I wonder at the background to our legal system sometimes.
As a scientist I would use clear facts. Use them to guide further investigation to get more facts resulting in a valid conclusion, or not if insufficient facts were available.
Lawyers seem to stray from this quite often. Some facts are used but then conjecture, what if,scenarios to suit their client often seem to take over. Judges have to watch these antics and, often after the event, instruct juries to ignore some comments etc.. Too late! The seeds have been sown!
If you want a laugh then have a look at Pistonheads forum "Speed, Plod and the Law".
Full of absolute bull from ill informed posters, trolls, some actual legal bods.