UK - Should footballer Ched Evans get his old job back?

Post Reply New Topic

WTF? You are saying a case in Wales, tried in a local court is an attempt to distract from as scandal that only came to public notice more recently that that. Also far from detracting Operation Yewtree far from detracting actually help create the impetus for perusing cases like the Westminster Pedophile ring.

You guys are scraping the bottom of the barrel now.

Last edited by 0_equals_true on 20 Aug 2014, 4:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Serious sexual assault and rape are as serious. The sentences to either can be similar and sexual assault is not treated as a lesser crime than rape.

He could be tried in Spain for an sexual assault of a 12 year old.

Whether the victim or the victim families were seeking fame, doesn't change the nature of the crimes. It is not an excuse, or a defense.

Cliff Richard deserves a fair trial, and will have his day in court (if there is a case).

It is called due process.

My opinion with a lot of this rhetoric, is when It suits you get the "no smoke with out fire", and when it doesn't you get the "it's a stitch up".


There is no real respect of due process, and the understanding of the roles of the police, government, Parliament, CPS and judiciary can be quite poor and frequently confused.

Yes, I agree wholeheartedly with this post.

We need to simultaneously fully respect both the defendant's right to be assumed innocent until proven guilty, and believe and respect the accuser who is doing something very difficult. Lord help anyone who ever has one good friend accuse another of sexual assault...

No, I said the Ched Evans case is different.

Is the Westminster Pedophile ring being pursued? It has all gone quiet on that one.

I wonder what part of the 'due process' was served by the decision of South Yorkshire Police to turn the Cliff Richard raid into a pre-orchestrated media event - where does the search for justice fit into such a plan? Was it a fundraiser for a cash-strapped police force suffering from the effects of Austerity?

I think that the legal systems of the civilised world are as confused as the rest of us about how to regulate our sexual behaviour.

Sex is as natural and as essential and as inevitable as the need to eat and breathe. So why, for so many people, is it still shrouded in secrecy, guilt, shame, sorrow, remorse, disgust, denial and, above all, confusion, frustration, fear and questions about legality?

Last edited by MrGrumpy on 22 Aug 2014, 12:42 pm, edited 2 times in total.

It would be better to just say: "The roles of the police, government, Parliament, CPS and judiciary can be quite poor and frequently confused"

You might say that, but actually the former the understanding of these roles is as big a problem.

I have always had issues with the way the police use the media. In some cases like abduction, there might be an argument for it in the right context. However the it is not clear who is to blame in this case the BBC or the police. We will find out.

Due process is for the court not the police, though the police should not impede justice.

One thing that people don't realize, is the police cannot not make a record where someone is arrested an charged. So the media will find out whether there is a statement mentioning the name or not.

What is the alternative? Potentially: Police state, secret trials, detention without trial.

So some of the things which people understandably complain about, are actually that way for a reason, and there is a long history behind this.



It is pretty simple really. The government has no role in regulating our sexual behavior, unless it isn't consensual, or where children or vulnerable people are being exploited.

There is also nothing odd or bad about cases being complicated, the whole point of a trial it to determine if the crime did or didn't take place beyond reasonable doubt.



What does sex being natural have to do it? We live in a society, and our society has laws that say that sex must be consensual.

One person's right cannot supersede another.

In the Max Clifford case, the unproven offence against the 12-year-old in Spain was clearly included in the judge's sentencing decision.

Correct me if I am wrong, but if Clifford had already been convicted of the offence against the 12-year-old, then the jury would not have been allowed to hear about it. If I am correct, then there is a serious possibility that the jury's decision would have been different.

Sentencing is separate from trial. Previous convict can be mentioned in sentencing as this is after the jury has a verdict. The Judge mentioned it and his belief, but he was sentenced based on his conviction.

Yes, but the jury's decision was based upon information which included the fact that there were other accusers who did not appear on the charge sheet.

Sexual behaviour will never be regulated by a manufactured set of requirements.

Nature Rules OK...

i can see where this is going, and all i can say is....

ewwwwwwwwwwwwww.

Any chance of a shag, then?

am i not too old for you?

creep.

Bad Character of Defendants Admissibility

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/bad_ ... dence/#law

In other words if it show a pattern of behavior within the time frame of the crimes being tried it is admissible and completely legal. It is important evidence.