I stated sometime ago on this thread that the was more to this than meets the eye.
Evens Mrs has stood by hime, her father (a solicitor) has stood by him, and I think I read that the dads company are seeking an appeal and are funding it. Also remember Evans has betrayed his daughter at the very least, and at worst is a rapist, so there must be something in it for is Father in Law to back Evans.
Evans appears to be a man who has the morals of an alley cat, but is he a rapist? Like everyone on here, I have no idea, there are some that have already hung him for what he allegedly did, but I think those that have the foresight to see that an appeal was always going to happen, also have the intelligence to keep their powder dry, until the court do their (final) work.
We shall find out soon.
Yes he is a rapist and yes he did do it, no allegedly about it*.
*source = a court of law
Oh dear!
Why ? You said you had no idea if Evans is a rapist, you do beause he is.
So if his appeal is successful and the conviction is quashed is he still a rapist?
And, by the same logic, anyone who has raped a woman (or man) but not been caught and convicted is not a rapist?
1) No 2) Are you being deliberately obtuse? Ps a woman can't rape a man, it is impossible.
No of course if he is proven innocent in a court of law he is innocent. But he was proven guilty so - for now at least - he is a rapist.
which is incorrect in my opinion.
I know only the courts opinion matters to most, but incorrect convictions occur sometimes.
Think of it this way...
If YOU were convicted of murder but didn't kill anyone, you are saying you are a murderer.
I bet you wouldn't just say 'well the court says I am a murderer so I must be a murderer'.
If he didn't commit the crime but was convicted as a rapist, but physically hasn't raped anyone he cannot actually be a 'rapist'.
I hope we learn the truth, whereby it is clarified that either he did rape the victim or he was innocent.
That is all that matters in all of this.
I don't have to pretend I'm sitting in a jail cel convicted of a murder I didn't commit because It has already been clarified whether he raped her or not. He did.
It seems very odd to assume that all convictions are unsafe because there have been examples where some have been - the legal system would fall apart if that were the case.
It has already been clarified whether he raped her or not. He did.
But somehow, by your own admission, if his appeal is successful he did not rape her? The conviction, or lack thereof, somehow changes the actual event that occurred? Utterly bizarre!
I stated sometime ago on this thread that the was more to this than meets the eye.
Evens Mrs has stood by hime, her father (a solicitor) has stood by him, and I think I read that the dads company are seeking an appeal and are funding it. Also remember Evans has betrayed his daughter at the very least, and at worst is a rapist, so there must be something in it for is Father in Law to back Evans.
Evans appears to be a man who has the morals of an alley cat, but is he a rapist? Like everyone on here, I have no idea, there are some that have already hung him for what he allegedly did, but I think those that have the foresight to see that an appeal was always going to happen, also have the intelligence to keep their powder dry, until the court do their (final) work.
We shall find out soon.
Karl Massey is not a lawyer. He left school at 15. He runs a chain of jewellery shops.
I stated sometime ago on this thread that the was more to this than meets the eye.
Evens Mrs has stood by hime, her father (a solicitor) has stood by him, and I think I read that the dads company are seeking an appeal and are funding it. Also remember Evans has betrayed his daughter at the very least, and at worst is a rapist, so there must be something in it for is Father in Law to back Evans.
Evans appears to be a man who has the morals of an alley cat, but is he a rapist? Like everyone on here, I have no idea, there are some that have already hung him for what he allegedly did, but I think those that have the foresight to see that an appeal was always going to happen, also have the intelligence to keep their powder dry, until the court do their (final) work.
We shall find out soon.
Yes he is a rapist and yes he did do it, no allegedly about it*.
*source = a court of law
Oh dear!
Why ? You said you had no idea if Evans is a rapist, you do beause he is.
So if his appeal is successful and the conviction is quashed is he still a rapist?
And, by the same logic, anyone who has raped a woman (or man) but not been caught and convicted is not a rapist?
1) No 2) Are you being deliberately obtuse? Ps a woman can't rape a man, it is impossible.
While that's true to an extent, a woman aiding and abetting (by merely being a lookout, for example) another individual to rape a man would be liable to the same sentence as the actual rapist. (Anal rape is rape). There is also a new offence of assault by penetration which is defined as penetration with any object to the anus or vagina. Which a woman could also be charged with. It carries the same maximum sentence of life imprisonment.
Christ, missing the point, Ok it may be a member of her family that is the solicitor (I thought I read it somewhere) but the point being, If Evans is guilty why would his wifes dad back him, why? Any ideas?
I stated sometime ago on this thread that the was more to this than meets the eye.
Evens Mrs has stood by hime, her father (a solicitor) has stood by him, and I think I read that the dads company are seeking an appeal and are funding it. Also remember Evans has betrayed his daughter at the very least, and at worst is a rapist, so there must be something in it for is Father in Law to back Evans.
Evans appears to be a man who has the morals of an alley cat, but is he a rapist? Like everyone on here, I have no idea, there are some that have already hung him for what he allegedly did, but I think those that have the foresight to see that an appeal was always going to happen, also have the intelligence to keep their powder dry, until the court do their (final) work.
We shall find out soon.
Yes he is a rapist and yes he did do it, no allegedly about it*.
*source = a court of law
Oh dear!
Why ? You said you had no idea if Evans is a rapist, you do beause he is.
So if his appeal is successful and the conviction is quashed is he still a rapist?
And, by the same logic, anyone who has raped a woman (or man) but not been caught and convicted is not a rapist?
1) No 2) Are you being deliberately obtuse? Ps a woman can't rape a man, it is impossible.
No of course if he is proven innocent in a court of law he is innocent. But he was proven guilty so - for now at least - he is a rapist.
which is incorrect in my opinion.
I know only the courts opinion matters to most, but incorrect convictions occur sometimes.
Think of it this way...
If YOU were convicted of murder but didn't kill anyone, you are saying you are a murderer.
I bet you wouldn't just say 'well the court says I am a murderer so I must be a murderer'.
If he didn't commit the crime but was convicted as a rapist, but physically hasn't raped anyone he cannot actually be a 'rapist'.
I hope we learn the truth, whereby it is clarified that either he did rape the victim or he was innocent.
That is all that matters in all of this.
I don't have to pretend I'm sitting in a jail cel convicted of a murder I didn't commit because It has already been clarified whether he raped her or not. He did.
It seems very odd to assume that all convictions are unsafe because there have been examples where some have been - the legal system would fall apart if that were the case.
Why do I enter into debate with people on here sometimes? I really need to learn.
It has already been clarified whether he raped her or not. He did.
But somehow, by your own admission, if his appeal is successful he did not rape her? The conviction, or lack thereof, somehow changes the actual event that occurred? Utterly bizarre!
Absolutely. It isn't that bizarre - the definition of a rapist is someone who has been convicted of rape, Evans has therefore he is.
If that changes in the future then of course so does his status.
What I dont get is that if a women is too drunk she is deemed unable to consent and is therefore not responsible for her actions. But then a drunk man has to be responsible for his actions (rightly so) and effectively for the female concerned too. I.e. a drunk man has to make a decision as to whether the drunk women is actually too drunk to consent? That seems a little confusing to me.
Easy answer - if you have to question whether she's sober enough to consent she probably isn't.
But if the man has had a few drinks as well, his mind might not be very clear either.
Saturday night, you're steaming drunk, you meet a girl in the pub, who's also had too many and go back to your or her place. Somehow you manage to have sex. The next day you get arrested as she didn't give consent, is this fair, when both of you were equally drunk?
Being drunk does not generally work as a defence if you have committed a crime.
This description is nowhere near what happened in the Evans case. It would be closer to the McDonald case.
It has already been clarified whether he raped her or not. He did.
But somehow, by your own admission, if his appeal is successful he did not rape her? The conviction, or lack thereof, somehow changes the actual event that occurred? Utterly bizarre!
Absolutely. It isn't that bizarre - the definition of a rapist is someone who has been convicted of rape, Evans has therefore he is.
If that changes in the future then of course so does his status.
No, that's not the definition of rapist. It's just what you think the word means. Go look it up and maybe you'll understand.
Currently he has been convicted as a rapist due to the evidence supplied.
This has been referred for review because the CCRC have received some evidence that may have altered the verdict and as such have referred the case to the Court of Appeal.
Their words were:
In this case we have identified new material which was not considered by the jury at trial and
which in our view might have assisted the defence. In those circumstances, it is right and
proper for the matter to be before the court so that they can decide whether or not the new
information should affect the verdict in this case.
The fact still stands that at this time we know he has been convicted as a rapist, however something has come to light which has caused serious doubt over the original conviction.
It has already been clarified whether he raped her or not. He did.
But somehow, by your own admission, if his appeal is successful he did not rape her? The conviction, or lack thereof, somehow changes the actual event that occurred? Utterly bizarre!
Absolutely. It isn't that bizarre - the definition of a rapist is someone who has been convicted of rape, Evans has therefore he is.
If that changes in the future then of course so does his status.
No, that's not the definition of rapist. It's just what you think the word means. Go look it up and maybe you'll understand.
"One who commits the crime of rape"
He was found guilty of the crime of rape in a court of law, the only place you can be found guilty or innocent of the crime of rape, therefore he is.
It has already been clarified whether he raped her or not. He did.
But somehow, by your own admission, if his appeal is successful he did not rape her? The conviction, or lack thereof, somehow changes the actual event that occurred? Utterly bizarre!
Absolutely. It isn't that bizarre - the definition of a rapist is someone who has been convicted of rape, Evans has therefore he is.
If that changes in the future then of course so does his status.
Wow!! Just when you think you've seen/heard it all on this forum. On that note, I'm out of this discussion. Jeez!
What I dont get is that if a women is too drunk she is deemed unable to consent and is therefore not responsible for her actions. But then a drunk man has to be responsible for his actions (rightly so) and effectively for the female concerned too. I.e. a drunk man has to make a decision as to whether the drunk women is actually too drunk to consent? That seems a little confusing to me.
Easy answer - if you have to question whether she's sober enough to consent she probably isn't.
But if the man has had a few drinks as well, his mind might not be very clear either.
Saturday night, you're steaming drunk, you meet a girl in the pub, who's also had too many and go back to your or her place. Somehow you manage to have sex. The next day you get arrested as she didn't give consent, is this fair, when both of you were equally drunk?
The law says you'd be found guilty, probably. As to whether it's fair or not is, frankly, neither here nor there. The legislation of the UK is generally prudent but littered with potentially unfair provisions. Is it "fair" for example that Rugby and cricket fans can drink alcohol in sight of the pitch but football fans cannot?
In my view rape legislation has been weighted for so long against the victims and the chances of successful prosecutions so slim that this relatively new development is a sensible one and to be welcomed. There is, now, around a two-thirds chance of a guilty outcome; it used to be around 50/50. Nonetheless it is estimated that fewer than one rape victim in 30 will ever see her attacker brought to justice. A little bit of unfairness is a small price to pay for trying to redress this shocking imbalance.
It has already been clarified whether he raped her or not. He did.
But somehow, by your own admission, if his appeal is successful he did not rape her? The conviction, or lack thereof, somehow changes the actual event that occurred? Utterly bizarre!
Absolutely. It isn't that bizarre - the definition of a rapist is someone who has been convicted of rape, Evans has therefore he is.
If that changes in the future then of course so does his status.
I'm with SE9 here. He was convicted of rape so he is a rapist. If he is subsequently cleared then he isn't.
It has already been clarified whether he raped her or not. He did.
But somehow, by your own admission, if his appeal is successful he did not rape her? The conviction, or lack thereof, somehow changes the actual event that occurred? Utterly bizarre!
Absolutely. It isn't that bizarre - the definition of a rapist is someone who has been convicted of rape, Evans has therefore he is.
If that changes in the future then of course so does his status.
No, that's not the definition of rapist. It's just what you think the word means. Go look it up and maybe you'll understand.
"One who commits the crime of rape"
He was found guilty of the crime of rape in a court of law, the only place you can be found guilty or innocent of the crime of rape, therefore he is.
"Commits". In other words, he actually has to have raped her. If he didn't, then he's not a rapist, regardless of any conviction. It's not a hard concept to grasp. There are dozens of examples of miscarriages of justice where someone was convicted of a crime they did not commit. Are the Guildford 4 and Birmingham 6 murderers, terrorists and bombers? Were they ever?
It has already been clarified whether he raped her or not. He did.
But somehow, by your own admission, if his appeal is successful he did not rape her? The conviction, or lack thereof, somehow changes the actual event that occurred? Utterly bizarre!
Absolutely. It isn't that bizarre - the definition of a rapist is someone who has been convicted of rape, Evans has therefore he is.
If that changes in the future then of course so does his status.
I'm with SE9 here. He was convicted of rape so he is a rapist. If he is subsequently cleared then he isn't.
Really??? He either is a rapist or he isn't. He can't be both!!!!!
Isn't the point here that, whether he raped her or not, we, the general public, are free, at present, to refer to him as a rapist on a public forum without fear of legal reprimand?
When he was still on trial he was referred to as an 'accused rapist' or an 'alleged rapist', but since he was convicted, we can state his status as 'rapist' because the law says he is. He can have no grounds for complaint because the label 'rapist' is within the law. Whether or not he actually is a rapist is not quite the same thing and I can't quite believe we don't all realise that. Surely some on here are just playing with semantics to justify continuing to refer to him as a rapist? Surely the act of rape is different to a legal conviction of rape? As mentioned by others, miscarriages of justice would not exist if this wasn't the case.
In my opinion, it's not quite right to say that because the law says he was guilty, he therefore was guilty. It's more accurate to say that because the law said he was guilty, we can, in public, safely say he was guilty.
I stated sometime ago on this thread that the was more to this than meets the eye.
Evens Mrs has stood by hime, her father (a solicitor) has stood by him, and I think I read that the dads company are seeking an appeal and are funding it. Also remember Evans has betrayed his daughter at the very least, and at worst is a rapist, so there must be something in it for is Father in Law to back Evans.
Evans appears to be a man who has the morals of an alley cat, but is he a rapist? Like everyone on here, I have no idea, there are some that have already hung him for what he allegedly did, but I think those that have the foresight to see that an appeal was always going to happen, also have the intelligence to keep their powder dry, until the court do their (final) work.
We shall find out soon.
Karl Massey is not a lawyer. He left school at 15. He runs a chain of jewellery shops.
I stated sometime ago on this thread that the was more to this than meets the eye.
Evens Mrs has stood by hime, her father (a solicitor) has stood by him, and I think I read that the dads company are seeking an appeal and are funding it. Also remember Evans has betrayed his daughter at the very least, and at worst is a rapist, so there must be something in it for is Father in Law to back Evans.
Evans appears to be a man who has the morals of an alley cat, but is he a rapist? Like everyone on here, I have no idea, there are some that have already hung him for what he allegedly did, but I think those that have the foresight to see that an appeal was always going to happen, also have the intelligence to keep their powder dry, until the court do their (final) work.
We shall find out soon.
Yes he is a rapist and yes he did do it, no allegedly about it*.
*source = a court of law
Oh dear!
Why ? You said you had no idea if Evans is a rapist, you do beause he is.
So if his appeal is successful and the conviction is quashed is he still a rapist?
And, by the same logic, anyone who has raped a woman (or man) but not been caught and convicted is not a rapist?
1) No 2) Are you being deliberately obtuse? Ps a woman can't rape a man, it is impossible.
While that's true to an extent, a woman aiding and abetting (by merely being a lookout, for example) another individual to rape a man would be liable to the same sentence as the actual rapist. (Anal rape is rape). There is also a new offence of assault by penetration which is defined as penetration with any object to the anus or vagina. Which a woman could also be charged with. It carries the same maximum sentence of life imprisonment.
Christ, missing the point, Ok it may be a member of her family that is the solicitor (I thought I read it somewhere) but the point being, If Evans is guilty why would his wifes dad back him, why? Any ideas?
No, entirely NOT missing the point. The point being that some uneducated bloke who happened to strike lucky taking his daddy's business on - in a very dodgy industry (jewellery) - is much less likely to have the exacting standards or ability to understand the nuances of legal proceedings that a solicitor should have.
I'm suspecting that Massey is deserving of a sort of hangers-on category all to himself. FOWAGS - Fathers of Wives and Girlfriends. Before this fiasco, you can just imagine him loving all that kudos from his mates about his daughter going out with a footballer and really enjoying the reflected glory. Perhaps he feels he would lose face if he stepped back from that position? Perhaps his little girl just always gets what she wants? Some fathers can refuse their daughters nothing.
As for Evans, well he is just a rather sad and dull individual who shags drunks, he doesn't seem to have any concept of right or wrong.
Just read this and ask yourself whether it is likely that he is the sort of person you'd want your daughter going out with if you had any standards whatsoever.
I stated sometime ago on this thread that the was more to this than meets the eye.
Evens Mrs has stood by hime, her father (a solicitor) has stood by him, and I think I read that the dads company are seeking an appeal and are funding it. Also remember Evans has betrayed his daughter at the very least, and at worst is a rapist, so there must be something in it for is Father in Law to back Evans.
Evans appears to be a man who has the morals of an alley cat, but is he a rapist? Like everyone on here, I have no idea, there are some that have already hung him for what he allegedly did, but I think those that have the foresight to see that an appeal was always going to happen, also have the intelligence to keep their powder dry, until the court do their (final) work.
We shall find out soon.
Karl Massey is not a lawyer. He left school at 15. He runs a chain of jewellery shops.
I stated sometime ago on this thread that the was more to this than meets the eye.
Evens Mrs has stood by hime, her father (a solicitor) has stood by him, and I think I read that the dads company are seeking an appeal and are funding it. Also remember Evans has betrayed his daughter at the very least, and at worst is a rapist, so there must be something in it for is Father in Law to back Evans.
Evans appears to be a man who has the morals of an alley cat, but is he a rapist? Like everyone on here, I have no idea, there are some that have already hung him for what he allegedly did, but I think those that have the foresight to see that an appeal was always going to happen, also have the intelligence to keep their powder dry, until the court do their (final) work.
We shall find out soon.
Yes he is a rapist and yes he did do it, no allegedly about it*.
*source = a court of law
Oh dear!
Why ? You said you had no idea if Evans is a rapist, you do beause he is.
So if his appeal is successful and the conviction is quashed is he still a rapist?
And, by the same logic, anyone who has raped a woman (or man) but not been caught and convicted is not a rapist?
1) No 2) Are you being deliberately obtuse? Ps a woman can't rape a man, it is impossible.
While that's true to an extent, a woman aiding and abetting (by merely being a lookout, for example) another individual to rape a man would be liable to the same sentence as the actual rapist. (Anal rape is rape). There is also a new offence of assault by penetration which is defined as penetration with any object to the anus or vagina. Which a woman could also be charged with. It carries the same maximum sentence of life imprisonment.
Christ, missing the point, Ok it may be a member of her family that is the solicitor (I thought I read it somewhere) but the point being, If Evans is guilty why would his wifes dad back him, why? Any ideas?
Because either 1. His girlfriend's Dad believes him (so far apparently wrongly), and doesn't seem to have an issue with Ched Evans cheating on his daughter with a girl his mate had taken to a hotel room, while other mates watched and filmed through the window, before he left on the sly. As you do.
Or 2. He thinks him or his daughter will make money off the back of a professional footballer if Ched Evans gets aquitted and gets back into football.
Out of interest... why is impossible for a woman to rape a man if one of the main definitions is consent. What about a woman who sets out to get a bloke blind drunk/off his head and then takes advantage of that situation when he's incapacitated? It's a pretty offensive statement to say that women can't rape men.
Also
Surely if we all agree that legally it's "innocent until proven guilty", then once convicted in the eyes of the law it's "guilty until proven innocent" (through an appeal). So right now he IS a convicted rapist and if the appeal is successful he won't be. Not sure what's too hard to grasp about that one.
It has already been clarified whether he raped her or not. He did.
But somehow, by your own admission, if his appeal is successful he did not rape her? The conviction, or lack thereof, somehow changes the actual event that occurred? Utterly bizarre!
Absolutely. It isn't that bizarre - the definition of a rapist is someone who has been convicted of rape, Evans has therefore he is.
If that changes in the future then of course so does his status.
I'm with SE9 here. He was convicted of rape so he is a rapist. If he is subsequently cleared then he isn't.
Really??? He either is a rapist or he isn't. He can't be both!!!!!
He currently is a convicted rapist.
What part of the justice system and appeal system do you find impossible to grasp? Why does everything in the world need to be black and white?
I stated sometime ago on this thread that the was more to this than meets the eye.
Evens Mrs has stood by hime, her father (a solicitor) has stood by him, and I think I read that the dads company are seeking an appeal and are funding it. Also remember Evans has betrayed his daughter at the very least, and at worst is a rapist, so there must be something in it for is Father in Law to back Evans.
Evans appears to be a man who has the morals of an alley cat, but is he a rapist? Like everyone on here, I have no idea, there are some that have already hung him for what he allegedly did, but I think those that have the foresight to see that an appeal was always going to happen, also have the intelligence to keep their powder dry, until the court do their (final) work.
We shall find out soon.
Karl Massey is not a lawyer. He left school at 15. He runs a chain of jewellery shops.
I stated sometime ago on this thread that the was more to this than meets the eye.
Evens Mrs has stood by hime, her father (a solicitor) has stood by him, and I think I read that the dads company are seeking an appeal and are funding it. Also remember Evans has betrayed his daughter at the very least, and at worst is a rapist, so there must be something in it for is Father in Law to back Evans.
Evans appears to be a man who has the morals of an alley cat, but is he a rapist? Like everyone on here, I have no idea, there are some that have already hung him for what he allegedly did, but I think those that have the foresight to see that an appeal was always going to happen, also have the intelligence to keep their powder dry, until the court do their (final) work.
We shall find out soon.
Yes he is a rapist and yes he did do it, no allegedly about it*.
*source = a court of law
Oh dear!
Why ? You said you had no idea if Evans is a rapist, you do beause he is.
So if his appeal is successful and the conviction is quashed is he still a rapist?
And, by the same logic, anyone who has raped a woman (or man) but not been caught and convicted is not a rapist?
1) No 2) Are you being deliberately obtuse? Ps a woman can't rape a man, it is impossible.
While that's true to an extent, a woman aiding and abetting (by merely being a lookout, for example) another individual to rape a man would be liable to the same sentence as the actual rapist. (Anal rape is rape). There is also a new offence of assault by penetration which is defined as penetration with any object to the anus or vagina. Which a woman could also be charged with. It carries the same maximum sentence of life imprisonment.
Christ, missing the point, Ok it may be a member of her family that is the solicitor (I thought I read it somewhere) but the point being, If Evans is guilty why would his wifes dad back him, why? Any ideas?
No, entirely NOT missing the point. The point being that some uneducated bloke who happened to strike lucky taking his daddy's business on - in a very dodgy industry (jewellery) - is much less likely to have the exacting standards or ability to understand the nuances of legal proceedings that a solicitor should have.
I'm suspecting that Massey is deserving of a sort of hangers-on category all to himself. FOWAGS - Fathers of Wives and Girlfriends. Before this fiasco, you can just imagine him loving all that kudos from his mates about his daughter going out with a footballer and really enjoying the reflected glory. Perhaps he feels he would lose face if he stepped back from that position? Perhaps his little girl just always gets what she wants? Some fathers can refuse their daughters nothing.
As for Evans, well he is just a rather sad and dull individual who shags drunks, he doesn't seem to have any concept of right or wrong.
Just read this and ask yourself whether it is likely that he is the sort of person you'd want your daughter going out with if you had any standards whatsoever.
I'll try just one more time, you have missed the point like Nicky Bailey misses a penalty. MY point (borne out with the link) was why would her father defend Evans if he was guilty? Any father would want to give him a kicking JUST for betraying his daughter. Thats all.
Also your making a lot of character assumption (I'm suspecting that Massey is deserving of a sort of hangers-on category all to himself. FOWAGS - Fathers of Wives and Girlfriends) re Evans father in law, I dont understand what it brings to the debate.
I stated sometime ago on this thread that the was more to this than meets the eye.
Evens Mrs has stood by hime, her father (a solicitor) has stood by him, and I think I read that the dads company are seeking an appeal and are funding it. Also remember Evans has betrayed his daughter at the very least, and at worst is a rapist, so there must be something in it for is Father in Law to back Evans.
Evans appears to be a man who has the morals of an alley cat, but is he a rapist? Like everyone on here, I have no idea, there are some that have already hung him for what he allegedly did, but I think those that have the foresight to see that an appeal was always going to happen, also have the intelligence to keep their powder dry, until the court do their (final) work.
We shall find out soon.
Karl Massey is not a lawyer. He left school at 15. He runs a chain of jewellery shops.
I stated sometime ago on this thread that the was more to this than meets the eye.
Evens Mrs has stood by hime, her father (a solicitor) has stood by him, and I think I read that the dads company are seeking an appeal and are funding it. Also remember Evans has betrayed his daughter at the very least, and at worst is a rapist, so there must be something in it for is Father in Law to back Evans.
Evans appears to be a man who has the morals of an alley cat, but is he a rapist? Like everyone on here, I have no idea, there are some that have already hung him for what he allegedly did, but I think those that have the foresight to see that an appeal was always going to happen, also have the intelligence to keep their powder dry, until the court do their (final) work.
We shall find out soon.
Yes he is a rapist and yes he did do it, no allegedly about it*.
*source = a court of law
Oh dear!
Why ? You said you had no idea if Evans is a rapist, you do beause he is.
So if his appeal is successful and the conviction is quashed is he still a rapist?
And, by the same logic, anyone who has raped a woman (or man) but not been caught and convicted is not a rapist?
1) No 2) Are you being deliberately obtuse? Ps a woman can't rape a man, it is impossible.
While that's true to an extent, a woman aiding and abetting (by merely being a lookout, for example) another individual to rape a man would be liable to the same sentence as the actual rapist. (Anal rape is rape). There is also a new offence of assault by penetration which is defined as penetration with any object to the anus or vagina. Which a woman could also be charged with. It carries the same maximum sentence of life imprisonment.
Christ, missing the point, Ok it may be a member of her family that is the solicitor (I thought I read it somewhere) but the point being, If Evans is guilty why would his wifes dad back him, why? Any ideas?
No, entirely NOT missing the point. The point being that some uneducated bloke who happened to strike lucky taking his daddy's business on - in a very dodgy industry (jewellery) - is much less likely to have the exacting standards or ability to understand the nuances of legal proceedings that a solicitor should have.
I'm suspecting that Massey is deserving of a sort of hangers-on category all to himself. FOWAGS - Fathers of Wives and Girlfriends. Before this fiasco, you can just imagine him loving all that kudos from his mates about his daughter going out with a footballer and really enjoying the reflected glory. Perhaps he feels he would lose face if he stepped back from that position? Perhaps his little girl just always gets what she wants? Some fathers can refuse their daughters nothing.
As for Evans, well he is just a rather sad and dull individual who shags drunks, he doesn't seem to have any concept of right or wrong.
Just read this and ask yourself whether it is likely that he is the sort of person you'd want your daughter going out with if you had any standards whatsoever.
I stated sometime ago on this thread that the was more to this than meets the eye.
Evens Mrs has stood by hime, her father (a solicitor) has stood by him, and I think I read that the dads company are seeking an appeal and are funding it. Also remember Evans has betrayed his daughter at the very least, and at worst is a rapist, so there must be something in it for is Father in Law to back Evans.
Evans appears to be a man who has the morals of an alley cat, but is he a rapist? Like everyone on here, I have no idea, there are some that have already hung him for what he allegedly did, but I think those that have the foresight to see that an appeal was always going to happen, also have the intelligence to keep their powder dry, until the court do their (final) work.
We shall find out soon.
Karl Massey is not a lawyer. He left school at 15. He runs a chain of jewellery shops.
I stated sometime ago on this thread that the was more to this than meets the eye.
Evens Mrs has stood by hime, her father (a solicitor) has stood by him, and I think I read that the dads company are seeking an appeal and are funding it. Also remember Evans has betrayed his daughter at the very least, and at worst is a rapist, so there must be something in it for is Father in Law to back Evans.
Evans appears to be a man who has the morals of an alley cat, but is he a rapist? Like everyone on here, I have no idea, there are some that have already hung him for what he allegedly did, but I think those that have the foresight to see that an appeal was always going to happen, also have the intelligence to keep their powder dry, until the court do their (final) work.
We shall find out soon.
Yes he is a rapist and yes he did do it, no allegedly about it*.
*source = a court of law
Oh dear!
Why ? You said you had no idea if Evans is a rapist, you do beause he is.
So if his appeal is successful and the conviction is quashed is he still a rapist?
And, by the same logic, anyone who has raped a woman (or man) but not been caught and convicted is not a rapist?
1) No 2) Are you being deliberately obtuse? Ps a woman can't rape a man, it is impossible.
While that's true to an extent, a woman aiding and abetting (by merely being a lookout, for example) another individual to rape a man would be liable to the same sentence as the actual rapist. (Anal rape is rape). There is also a new offence of assault by penetration which is defined as penetration with any object to the anus or vagina. Which a woman could also be charged with. It carries the same maximum sentence of life imprisonment.
Christ, missing the point, Ok it may be a member of her family that is the solicitor (I thought I read it somewhere) but the point being, If Evans is guilty why would his wifes dad back him, why? Any ideas?
No, entirely NOT missing the point. The point being that some uneducated bloke who happened to strike lucky taking his daddy's business on - in a very dodgy industry (jewellery) - is much less likely to have the exacting standards or ability to understand the nuances of legal proceedings that a solicitor should have.
I'm suspecting that Massey is deserving of a sort of hangers-on category all to himself. FOWAGS - Fathers of Wives and Girlfriends. Before this fiasco, you can just imagine him loving all that kudos from his mates about his daughter going out with a footballer and really enjoying the reflected glory. Perhaps he feels he would lose face if he stepped back from that position? Perhaps his little girl just always gets what she wants? Some fathers can refuse their daughters nothing.
As for Evans, well he is just a rather sad and dull individual who shags drunks, he doesn't seem to have any concept of right or wrong.
Just read this and ask yourself whether it is likely that he is the sort of person you'd want your daughter going out with if you had any standards whatsoever.
HOLY MOLEY HOLD THE PHONE. Somebody get the judge on the phone! his father in law thinks he's innocent! Why would he be wrong guys? WHY? WHY? You can't prove that he thinks he did it, check mate atheists etc etc
I'll try just one more time, you have missed the point like Nicky Bailey misses a penalty. MY point (borne out with the link) was why would her father defend Evans if he was guilty? Any father would want to give him a kicking JUST for betraying his daughter. Thats all.
Also your making a lot of character assumption (I'm suspecting that Massey is deserving of a sort of hangers-on category all to himself. FOWAGS - Fathers of Wives and Girlfriends) re Evans father in law, I dont understand what it brings to the debate.
How would his father in law know anything for sure, he knows what Ched has told him. Ched is going to protest his innocence to her family, he is hardly going to admit it is he.
Out of interest... why is impossible for a woman to rape a man if one of the main definitions is consent. What about a woman who sets out to get a bloke blind drunk/off his head and then takes advantage of that situation when he's incapacitated? It's a pretty offensive statement to say that women can't rape men.
My understanding here, (and I'm happy to be corrected), is that rape involves the insertion of a penis into an orifice of another human being. The act of having sex without consent is regarded as sexual assault when it is commited by a woman. This is still a serious offence. I believe the "penis" aspect of rape is what caused the crime of "penetration" (mentioned earlier in the thread - which can involve inserting a different object) to be introduced to law.
Comments
It seems very odd to assume that all convictions are unsafe because there have been examples where some have been - the legal system would fall apart if that were the case.
If that changes in the future then of course so does his status.
This description is nowhere near what happened in the Evans case. It would be closer to the McDonald case.
He is either a rapist or not.
Currently he has been convicted as a rapist due to the evidence supplied.
This has been referred for review because the CCRC have received some evidence that may have altered the verdict and as such have referred the case to the Court of Appeal.
Their words were: The fact still stands that at this time we know he has been convicted as a rapist, however something has come to light which has caused serious doubt over the original conviction.
He was found guilty of the crime of rape in a court of law, the only place you can be found guilty or innocent of the crime of rape, therefore he is.
In my view rape legislation has been weighted for so long against the victims and the chances of successful prosecutions so slim that this relatively new development is a sensible one and to be welcomed. There is, now, around a two-thirds chance of a guilty outcome; it used to be around 50/50. Nonetheless it is estimated that fewer than one rape victim in 30 will ever see her attacker brought to justice. A little bit of unfairness is a small price to pay for trying to redress this shocking imbalance.
I've no doubt Evans would disagree.
When he was still on trial he was referred to as an 'accused rapist' or an 'alleged rapist', but since he was convicted, we can state his status as 'rapist' because the law says he is. He can have no grounds for complaint because the label 'rapist' is within the law.
Whether or not he actually is a rapist is not quite the same thing and I can't quite believe we don't all realise that. Surely some on here are just playing with semantics to justify continuing to refer to him as a rapist? Surely the act of rape is different to a legal conviction of rape? As mentioned by others, miscarriages of justice would not exist if this wasn't the case.
In my opinion, it's not quite right to say that because the law says he was guilty, he therefore was guilty. It's more accurate to say that because the law said he was guilty, we can, in public, safely say he was guilty.
http://www.chedevans.com/the-disputed-tweets
I'm suspecting that Massey is deserving of a sort of hangers-on category all to himself. FOWAGS - Fathers of Wives and Girlfriends. Before this fiasco, you can just imagine him loving all that kudos from his mates about his daughter going out with a footballer and really enjoying the reflected glory. Perhaps he feels he would lose face if he stepped back from that position? Perhaps his little girl just always gets what she wants? Some fathers can refuse their daughters nothing.
As for Evans, well he is just a rather sad and dull individual who shags drunks, he doesn't seem to have any concept of right or wrong.
Just read this and ask yourself whether it is likely that he is the sort of person you'd want your daughter going out with if you had any standards whatsoever.
dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2804422/Football-rapist-Ched-Evans-shot-friend-leg-high-powered-air-rifle-offering-10-900-not-tell-bosses.html
Or 2. He thinks him or his daughter will make money off the back of a professional footballer if Ched Evans gets aquitted and gets back into football.
"Ched stated that the complainant asked him to perform oral sex upon her by telling him to “lick me out”. He did so"
Because... Eurgh.
Also
Surely if we all agree that legally it's "innocent until proven guilty", then once convicted in the eyes of the law it's "guilty until proven innocent" (through an appeal). So right now he IS a convicted rapist and if the appeal is successful he won't be. Not sure what's too hard to grasp about that one.
What part of the justice system and appeal system do you find impossible to grasp? Why does everything in the world need to be black and white?
Also your making a lot of character assumption (I'm suspecting that Massey is deserving of a sort of hangers-on category all to himself. FOWAGS - Fathers of Wives and Girlfriends) re Evans father in law, I dont understand what it brings to the debate.
''If Evans is guilty why would his wifes dad back him, why? Any ideas?''
Because he is in complete denial and the so called event never took place.
Does he think Evans was never there or didn't creep into the hotel?
I believe the "penis" aspect of rape is what caused the crime of "penetration" (mentioned earlier in the thread - which can involve inserting a different object) to be introduced to law.