In the eyes of the law he is not guilty of rape, his morals were not on trial. If anyone has evidence to the contrary, contact the police.
The jury are required to decide on the basis of the evidence - luckily joe public is permitted to conclude whatever he likes
Your quite right, Joe public can conclude anything, based on news reports and opinion, not evidence.
Yes and their opinion is not that he's guilty of rape but that he is a wrong un. On the evidence available both are true.
Yes it would appear football is littered with wrong 'uns as you call them, and also if most what you read is true then it would appear that the majority of footballers have the brain of a duck. Based on the above, squad sizes would be tiny if players were ostracised by the 'holier than thou judge and jury' on football forums, for every cock up (pardon the pun) that they made. Evans is no doubt a bit scummy, but he's not a rapist, the courts say so.
No maybe it isn't exactly the same but trust me its pretty similar, do not believe everything you hear or read, leuth, was you actually there to confirm what you just said actually happened, or are you just going purely on everything you read and hear? Just a question, please answer it honestly
He never denied it happened, he might not be a rapist, but he's still a wrong'un.
He's a cheater and a sleaze for sure, a bit of a dodgy one & a chav too, but he has been cleared of rape.
Ched Evans has been found not guilty let him get on with his life simple as that
yeah, tell that to the girl he took 'advantage' of. agreed he is not a rapist but his actions that night were reprehensible and not those of a decent, normal human being.
Im not defending him taking 'advantage' of the women. His actions in the eyes of many are rephensible but they are not criminal so he should be entitled to live a normal life like anyone else who does not hold a criminal conviction of rape.
In the eyes of the law he is not guilty of rape, his morals were not on trial. If anyone has evidence to the contrary, contact the police.
The jury are required to decide on the basis of the evidence - luckily joe public is permitted to conclude whatever he likes
Your quite right, Joe public can conclude anything, based on news reports and opinion, not evidence.
Yes and their opinion is not that he's guilty of rape but that he is a wrong un. On the evidence available both are true.
ostracised by the 'holier than thou judge and jury' on football forums
It's not 'holier than thou' to be disgusted by something. It doesn't mean anyone thinks of themselves as angelic and innocent necessarily. But it's easier to make generalised statements like that rather than to debate specific points.
In the eyes of the law he is not guilty of rape, his morals were not on trial. If anyone has evidence to the contrary, contact the police.
The jury are required to decide on the basis of the evidence - luckily joe public is permitted to conclude whatever he likes
Your quite right, Joe public can conclude anything, based on news reports and opinion, not evidence.
Yes and their opinion is not that he's guilty of rape but that he is a wrong un. On the evidence available both are true.
ostracised by the 'holier than thou judge and jury' on football forums
It's not 'holier than thou' to be disgusted by something. It doesn't mean anyone thinks of themselves as angelic and innocent necessarily. But it's easier to make generalised statements like that rather than to debate specific points.
In the eyes of the law he is not guilty of rape, his morals were not on trial. If anyone has evidence to the contrary, contact the police.
The jury are required to decide on the basis of the evidence - luckily joe public is permitted to conclude whatever he likes
Your quite right, Joe public can conclude anything, based on news reports and opinion, not evidence.
Yes and their opinion is not that he's guilty of rape but that he is a wrong un. On the evidence available both are true.
ostracised by the 'holier than thou judge and jury' on football forums
It's not 'holier than thou' to be disgusted by something. It doesn't mean anyone thinks of themselves as angelic and innocent necessarily. But it's easier to make generalised statements like that rather than to debate specific points.
Not strictly relevant for this case, but interestingly approximately 40% of crown court trials result in acquittals.
Unless one believes the police and/or CPS are structurally incompetent, the likelihood is that a significant proportion of these defendants were merely not guilty as opposed to 'innocent'.
Rightly or wrongly, we set the 'beyond reasonable doubt' bar high as society has concluded that jailing the occasional genuinely innocent person is much more damaging than releasing an offender for whom there was insufficient evidence to convict. Obviously the former still occurs but it is relatively rare.
If you guys are going to say such things, I don't see why they should be ignored.
Most things aimed at Jnr or me, I let go on here, Jnr is his own man and has his own opinions, and he is big and brave enough to voice his opinions, and stick up for himself (be they right or wrong). I supported you when those fellas burst into your house that time, but you have just attacked my family unit you socially inept twat. Fucking keyboard warrior. Oh so brave snides like you make me sick. Do me a favour and crawl back under the stone that you popped your festering face out from under. Yes you've pissed me off.
"Keyboard warrior" etc is a basic fallback position in such situations, I get that. As is that kind of abuse, and exactly what I'd expect from you. To be fair, I almost never engage with you intentionally, I think your views are largely reprehensible. So I will do my very best not to again in order to save you this level of stress.
"Keyboard warrior" etc is a basic fallback position in such situations, I get that. As is that kind of abuse, and exactly what I'd expect from you. To be fair, I almost never engage with you intentionally, I think your views are largely reprehensible. So I will do my very best not to again in order to save you this level of stress.
And you still go on. Not a fallback its what you are. Yep do me a favour brave boy.
"Keyboard warrior" etc is a basic fallback position in such situations, I get that. As is that kind of abuse, and exactly what I'd expect from you. To be fair, I almost never engage with you intentionally, I think your views are largely reprehensible. So I will do my very best not to again in order to save you this level of stress.
And you still go on. Not a fallback its what you are. Yep do me a favour brave boy.
"Keyboard warrior" etc is a basic fallback position in such situations, I get that. As is that kind of abuse, and exactly what I'd expect from you. To be fair, I almost never engage with you intentionally, I think your views are largely reprehensible. So I will do my very best not to again in order to save you this level of stress.
And you still go on. Not a fallback its what you are. Yep do me a favour brave boy.
That literally makes no sense. Are you ok?
I thought that you weren't going to engage with me intentionally. You did well there sonny. I assume you're just out to wind me up just to get a reaction? Or do you get some sort of perverse pleasure from being a snide WUM.
Well you are addressing me directly which is a bit different. I've no history of winding up, not really my thing. I guess I only did because of your little tirade. But that was my fault entirely - I ultimately picked a fight. I genuinely try not to, I read some of your stuff and just move on without saying anything. I don't think that's right, you should be called out on some of your views, but it's a futile endeavour and I should accept that.
Doesn't the Scottish Courts have a verdict of "not proven"? Maybe that is something the we should have South of the boarder?? We spend our life making judgments without seeing or hearing the complete story, this is just another one of them. I for one wouldn't stop making the judgements because I hadn't seen all the evidence because that's not how life works unless it's in a court. I don't like him, in my eyes I think he was wrong but it's not proven, so he is out living his life.
I would just like to apologise about my posts last night, and I know everyone is intituled to there opinion, just sometimes when things are close to home you can get abit rilled up however I certainly don't want to see a devide in Charlton fans and I'm sorry if I have upset anyone
Not strictly relevant for this case, but interestingly approximately 40% of crown court trials result in acquittals.
Unless one believes the police and/or CPS are structurally incompetent, the likelihood is that a significant proportion of these defendants were merely not guilty as opposed to 'innocent'.
Rightly or wrongly, we set the 'beyond reasonable doubt' bar high as society has concluded that jailing the occasional genuinely innocent person is much more damaging than releasing an offender for whom there was insufficient evidence to convict. Obviously the former still occurs but it is relatively rare.
In terms of your acquittal statistic, you are not looking at this in the right way.
While the "burden of proof" in criminal matters is indeed "beyond reasonable doubt", the decision as to whether to prosecute made by the CPS (often in conjunction with independent Counsel in complex matters) is whether there is a "realistic prospect of conviction". For that purpose, "realistic ..." reverts to the equivalent of the civil test of "on the balance of probabilities". That is, a conviction is more likely than not or to put it another way there is a more than a 50% chance of conviction. That deals with the "evidential test" and then there's also the "public interest" test which includes factors like "impact on the community" and "is prosecution a proportionate response".
So, in a nutshell, a 60% success rate in the criminal courts is about par for the course.
If there was, say, a 100% chance of a criminal conviction, the CPS would have become Judge, Jury and Executioner and use of the Courts at all would be otiose.
Not strictly relevant for this case, but interestingly approximately 40% of crown court trials result in acquittals.
Unless one believes the police and/or CPS are structurally incompetent, the likelihood is that a significant proportion of these defendants were merely not guilty as opposed to 'innocent'.
Rightly or wrongly, we set the 'beyond reasonable doubt' bar high as society has concluded that jailing the occasional genuinely innocent person is much more damaging than releasing an offender for whom there was insufficient evidence to convict. Obviously the former still occurs but it is relatively rare.
In terms of your acquittal statistic, you are not looking at this in the right way.
While the "burden of proof" in criminal matters is indeed "beyond reasonable doubt", the decision as to whether to prosecute made by the CPS (often in conjunction with independent Counsel in complex matters) is whether there is a "realistic prospect of conviction". For that purpose, "realistic ..." reverts to the equivalent of the civil test of "on the balance of probabilities". That is, a conviction is more likely than not or to put it another way there is a more than a 50% chance of conviction. That deals with the "evidential test" and then there's also the "public interest" test which includes factors like "impact on the community" and "is prosecution a proportionate response".
So, in a nutshell, a 60% success rate in the criminal courts is about par for the course.
If there was, say, a 100% chance of a criminal conviction, the CPS would have become Judge, Jury and Executioner and use of the Courts at all would be otiose.
I think we're broadly in agreement - my point is that 'not guilty' does not equate to 'innocent'.
Not strictly relevant for this case, but interestingly approximately 40% of crown court trials result in acquittals.
Unless one believes the police and/or CPS are structurally incompetent, the likelihood is that a significant proportion of these defendants were merely not guilty as opposed to 'innocent'.
Rightly or wrongly, we set the 'beyond reasonable doubt' bar high as society has concluded that jailing the occasional genuinely innocent person is much more damaging than releasing an offender for whom there was insufficient evidence to convict. Obviously the former still occurs but it is relatively rare.
In terms of your acquittal statistic, you are not looking at this in the right way.
While the "burden of proof" in criminal matters is indeed "beyond reasonable doubt", the decision as to whether to prosecute made by the CPS (often in conjunction with independent Counsel in complex matters) is whether there is a "realistic prospect of conviction". For that purpose, "realistic ..." reverts to the equivalent of the civil test of "on the balance of probabilities". That is, a conviction is more likely than not or to put it another way there is a more than a 50% chance of conviction. That deals with the "evidential test" and then there's also the "public interest" test which includes factors like "impact on the community" and "is prosecution a proportionate response".
So, in a nutshell, a 60% success rate in the criminal courts is about par for the course.
If there was, say, a 100% chance of a criminal conviction, the CPS would have become Judge, Jury and Executioner and use of the Courts at all would be otiose.
I think we're broadly in agreement - my point is that 'not guilty' does not equate to 'innocent'.
Yes, but only out on the streets maybe. Of course, the Courts can only consider the evidence before them. So, unless in Scotland with their strange half-way-house "not proven" verdict, I'd say for all intents and purposes, not guilty means innocent. The basic cornerstone of our law being "innocent until proven guilty". If you doubt that try doing a blog suggesting an individual found not guilty is not innocent and see how you get on at your libel trial.
Thankfully for mere suspects we tend not to do that "perp walk" thing that they seem to enjoy so much in the USA.
Not strictly relevant for this case, but interestingly approximately 40% of crown court trials result in acquittals.
Unless one believes the police and/or CPS are structurally incompetent, the likelihood is that a significant proportion of these defendants were merely not guilty as opposed to 'innocent'.
Rightly or wrongly, we set the 'beyond reasonable doubt' bar high as society has concluded that jailing the occasional genuinely innocent person is much more damaging than releasing an offender for whom there was insufficient evidence to convict. Obviously the former still occurs but it is relatively rare.
In terms of your acquittal statistic, you are not looking at this in the right way.
While the "burden of proof" in criminal matters is indeed "beyond reasonable doubt", the decision as to whether to prosecute made by the CPS (often in conjunction with independent Counsel in complex matters) is whether there is a "realistic prospect of conviction". For that purpose, "realistic ..." reverts to the equivalent of the civil test of "on the balance of probabilities". That is, a conviction is more likely than not or to put it another way there is a more than a 50% chance of conviction. That deals with the "evidential test" and then there's also the "public interest" test which includes factors like "impact on the community" and "is prosecution a proportionate response".
So, in a nutshell, a 60% success rate in the criminal courts is about par for the course.
If there was, say, a 100% chance of a criminal conviction, the CPS would have become Judge, Jury and Executioner and use of the Courts at all would be otiose.
I think we're broadly in agreement - my point is that 'not guilty' does not equate to 'innocent'.
Yes, but only out on the streets maybe. Of course, the Courts can only consider the evidence before them. So, unless in Scotland with their strange half-way-house "not proven" verdict, I'd say for all intents and purposes, not guilty means innocent. The basic cornerstone of our law being "innocent until proven guilty". If you doubt that try doing a blog suggesting an individual found not guilty is not innocent and see how you get on at your libel trial.
Thankfully for mere suspects we tend not to do that "perp walk" thing that they seem to enjoy so much in the USA.
It sounds like you are more of an expert on these things than I am, but I think there was an important Supreme Court ruling in 2011 which undermined the entire "innocent unless proven guilty" concept as innocence is not a concept known to the criminal justice system (paraphrasing Baroness Hale).
Naturally I'm not intending to label anyone as 'not innocent' on my blog after having been found not guilty in a court (!), but to successfully win a libel case they would have to prove their innocence (which is not as straightforward as pointing to the result of their court case [which focused on proving their guilt or otherwise, not their innocence!]).
Anyhow I suspect we're moving slightly off topic....
Comments
Based on the above, squad sizes would be tiny if players were ostracised by the 'holier than thou judge and jury' on football forums, for every cock up (pardon the pun) that they made.
Evans is no doubt a bit scummy, but he's not a rapist, the courts say so.
But hey, this is from the family that brought us: So when it comes to wrong uns, I guess you know your stuff.
Think this thread just needs a bloody good torpedo.
My final contribution to this thread will be:
Unless one believes the police and/or CPS are structurally incompetent, the likelihood is that a significant proportion of these defendants were merely not guilty as opposed to 'innocent'.
Rightly or wrongly, we set the 'beyond reasonable doubt' bar high as society has concluded that jailing the occasional genuinely innocent person is much more damaging than releasing an offender for whom there was insufficient evidence to convict. Obviously the former still occurs but it is relatively rare.
I supported you when those fellas burst into your house that time, but you have just attacked my family unit you socially inept twat. Fucking keyboard warrior.
Oh so brave snides like you make me sick. Do me a favour and crawl back under the stone that you popped your festering face out from under.
Yes you've pissed me off.
I assume you're just out to wind me up just to get a reaction? Or do you get some sort of perverse pleasure from being a snide WUM.
We spend our life making judgments without seeing or hearing the complete story, this is just another one of them. I for one wouldn't stop making the judgements because I hadn't seen all the evidence because that's not how life works unless it's in a court.
I don't like him, in my eyes I think he was wrong but it's not proven, so he is out living his life.
Aah, I'm not needed
While the "burden of proof" in criminal matters is indeed "beyond reasonable doubt", the decision as to whether to prosecute made by the CPS (often in conjunction with independent Counsel in complex matters) is whether there is a "realistic prospect of conviction". For that purpose, "realistic ..." reverts to the equivalent of the civil test of "on the balance of probabilities". That is, a conviction is more likely than not or to put it another way there is a more than a 50% chance of conviction. That deals with the "evidential test" and then there's also the "public interest" test which includes factors like "impact on the community" and "is prosecution a proportionate response".
So, in a nutshell, a 60% success rate in the criminal courts is about par for the course.
If there was, say, a 100% chance of a criminal conviction, the CPS would have become Judge, Jury and Executioner and use of the Courts at all would be otiose.
Thankfully for mere suspects we tend not to do that "perp walk" thing that they seem to enjoy so much in the USA.
Naturally I'm not intending to label anyone as 'not innocent' on my blog after having been found not guilty in a court (!), but to successfully win a libel case they would have to prove their innocence (which is not as straightforward as pointing to the result of their court case [which focused on proving their guilt or otherwise, not their innocence!]).
Anyhow I suspect we're moving slightly off topic....