Originally Posted by Mick (Post 35863831)

I really don't want see comments like that again that she is a tramp or whatever, I think the social warriors attack on this girl has been over the top and pathetic, calling her a tramp, that was uncalled for, withdraw it or back out of the thread.

Originally Posted by martyh (Post 35863851)

It's the most forum friendly word i could think of can't think of any other way to describe her really

Be interesting to see how (now the new evidence has been revealed) other people would describe her .We know he is an idiot that can'y keep his pants up but prior to the appeal she was lorded as a victim carrying no blame ,the evidence states otherwise and was backed up by the verdict

Originally Posted by Mr Banana (Post 35863853)

A young lady who has a healthy sex life. But seeing as you mention it, funny that the others didn't come forward until 50K was on offer?

Originally Posted by Mr Banana (Post 35863853)

A young lady who has a healthy sex life. But seeing as you mention it, funny that the others didn't come forward until 50K was on offer?

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 35863856)

How could they come forward when her name wasn't published?

Originally Posted by Mr Banana (Post 35863853)

A young lady who has a healthy sex life. But seeing as you mention it, funny that the others didn't come forward until 50K was on offer?

Originally Posted by martyh (Post 35863861)

I've got no issue with a girl having a healthy sex life ,just one that lets a man sit in jail for 2 yrs for something he didn't do .If she had spoken up during the 2 yrs ,said something to hint that she had made a mistake then i might have a better opinion of her but she has said not one word

Originally Posted by Mr Banana (Post 35863863)

From what I can gather she did not say she was raped, the police decided to prosecute based on what they heard had gone on, so what is she supposed to do?

Originally Posted by martyh (Post 35863865)

The whole thing is a mess neither party has come out well from and i don't think they deserve to either .Their own actions created the situation ,no sympathy whatsoever for either of them

Originally Posted by martyh (Post 35863865)

Well they only had her version of what went on to form a case didn't they ,if i remember she told the police she thought she had been drugged and woke up alone ,clearly that wasn't the case.She may have been drunk but not that drunk as the judge said drunken consent during sex is still consent .

The whole thing is a mess neither party has come out well from and i don't think they deserve to either .Their own actions created the situation ,no sympathy whatsoever for either of them

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 35863868)

Yet one is a "tramp" and a " thing", whereas the other is just a silly boy.

Didn't realise you were a bitter and angry woman hater. I think you need to see someone, it probably all has something to do with your relationship with your mother when you were a child.

Originally Posted by Mr Banana (Post 35863869)

I agree with you that its a mess but the reality is that in future women may be put off coming forward after they have seen what a highly paid lawyer can do to stain their reputation by bringing up their past.

Originally Posted by martyh (Post 35863870)

You need to apologize for this remark ,totally uncalled for

Originally Posted by martyh (Post 35863870)

Wow ,such an insightful post ,clearly you have plenty of input ...........or just trolling again :rolleyes:

How about you contribute something worthwhile instead of being a jack ass .I have explained my opinion of her and why i think she is what she is and i'm sure i'm not alone in that ,you however seem to be sure she is a paragon of virtue ,that's your prerogative.He is far from a "silly boy" as i have repeatedly stated if you bother to read ,i can think of a lot worse things to call her and him but rules is rules


You need to apologize for this remark ,totally uncalled for



---------- Post added at 20:12 ---------- Previous post was at 20:04 ----------



The lawyers didn't stain her reputation ,the judge after much deliberation allowed evidence showing her past history to be allowed into evidence ,that hasn't taken any money at all it was the basis of the appeal.If a woman has genuinely been raped or assaulted then of course they should come forward and should be encouraged to but at the same time if a woman makes false claims or allows the wrong conclusion to be drawn without speaking out she must be taken to task

Originally Posted by Arthurgray50@blu (Post 35863900)

I am a parent of two boys and a girl. And l thin the biggest problem we have in this world today. Is when someone is accused of rape. Whether its a man or woman is the victim.

I would say that MOST men if they have been raped never come forward. Due to this 'manly thing'

And this thing that this case has put law back 30 years. Total rubbish.

Rape is an evil crime against the person. But we have to look at several things. Men do take advantage of women. And they re used as sexual toys.

But the law must be there to protect BOTH parties and must investigate thoroughly. So that the truth does comes out before going to court. As both the victim and the suspect suffer. Especially IF the suspect says that he innocent.

The first couple of hours are crucial.

Remember, rape is a crime where a person has sex without consent

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 35863856)

How could they come forward when her name wasn't published?

Originally Posted by Paul M (Post 35863910)

Was her name published after the reward was offered ?

Originally Posted by Mr Banana (Post 35863891)

Looks like some senior people are uncomfortable about this whole episode.

http://news.sky.com/story/ched-evans...cuser-10618715

Vera Baird, police and crime commissioner for Northumbria and former solicitor general, told the BBC: "The only difference between a clear conviction of Mr Evans in 2012 and the absolute refusal of him having any leave to appeal at that time, and his acquittal now, is that he has called some men to throw discredit on [the woman's] sexual reputation.

"That, I think, is pouring prejudice, which is exactly what used to happen before the law in 1999 stopped the admission of previous sexual history in order to show consent.

"We've gone back, I'm afraid, probably about 30 years."

Originally Posted by martyh (Post 35863865)

The whole thing is a mess neither party has come out well from and i don't think they deserve to either .Their own actions created the situation ,no sympathy whatsoever for either of them

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 35863868)

Yet one is a "tramp" and a " thing", whereas the other is just a silly boy.

Didn't realise you were a bitter and angry woman hater. I think you need to see someone, it probably all has something to do with your relationship with your mother when you were a child.

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 35863916)

On some internet and facebook sites, even though there was a court order banning it.

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 35863990)

Because her name and address were widely available on the internet, so much so she had to change her name and move house.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...ed-online.html

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 35863995)

So only if you went looking for her name. It wasn't front page news on newspapers or anything like that. Has she denied or has it been disproved that they had sex with her?

If you apply the same principles to the other men that have had sex with her, it's sounds like dozens of men would have locked up. Then add in similar goings on with other women and there would be more men in jail than outside it.

Originally Posted by TheDaddy (Post 35864012)

If you type ched evans in Google her and her mother's name are in the helpful related searches list iirc

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 35864015)

You mean like if someone was offering £50,000 for evidence...

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 35864016)

In the original case she was being judged on her sex life. That is how MacDonald was found non guilty. She was considered to be the sort of person that would go off with a random bloke for sex whilst being too drunk to give consent.

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 35864016)

But you'd have to know about that and somehow know that you possibly had evidence relating to the case.

In the original case she was being judged on her sex life. That is how MacDonald was found non guilty. She was considered to be the sort of person that would go off with a random bloke for sex whilst being too drunk to give consent.

Originally Posted by Damien (Post 35864021)

I find that part very disturbing. I don't understand why her prior sex life is relevant but as I wasn't in the Court of Appeals or in the Jury I've refrained from commenting on it.

It's also why I don't understand the language and venom directed at this women. There seems to be a double-standard, a nasty one, about woman have many partners and a man having them. IMO both are fine, if everyone consents what's the problem.

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 35864023)

If she was too drunk with Evans, she was automatically too drunk with McDonald. Yet only one was found guilty. The case was all about being able to give consent.

Originally Posted by Damien (Post 35864025)

Again I wasn't in the court so we have to be careful here but....

My understanding was the because she went back to the hotel with McDonald he his defence said that could be taken as consent whereas since Evans was invited later he could not have have assumed consent?

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 35864027)

Then why was MacDonald prosecuted? The case revolved her drunken behaviour before Evans saw her.

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 35864013)

Exactly, you'd have to be looking for something connected. It wasn't something you would casually come across in the normal course of events.

Originally Posted by Damien (Post 35864021)

I find that part very disturbing. I don't understand why her prior sex life is relevant but as I wasn't in the Court of Appeals or in the Jury I've refrained from commenting on it.

It's also why I don't understand the language and venom directed at this women. There seems to be a double-standard, a nasty one, about woman have many partners and a man having them. IMO both are fine, if everyone consents what's the problem.

Originally Posted by martyh (Post 35864042)

It's nothing to do with the amount of partners she has and i'm surprised you can't see that .However grubby and Evans and McDonald where they did not deserve jail for something they did not do .She had ample opportunity to cast doubt on the original investigation and while he was in jail, but it took digging into her previous sex life to find the truth.

Originally Posted by martyh (Post 35864042)

It's nothing to do with the amount of partners she has and i'm surprised you can't see that .However grubby and Evans and McDonald where they did not deserve jail for something they did not do .She had ample opportunity to cast doubt on the original investigation and while he was in jail, but it took digging into her previous sex life to find the truth.

Originally Posted by Damien (Post 35864050)

Her story has remained consistent throughout. You seem to find a need a blame her but then you won't even aknowledge it is her instead preferring rather nasty language instead.

Originally Posted by Mr Banana (Post 35864060)

Have no idea what you are getting at but you clearly have issue with this girl.

This is from an interview with Evans in todays mail.

"I think it was a situation that got taken out of our hands from an early stage. She never said anybody raped her. She said she had a blackout but that didn't mean, like it was said in court, that she didn't consent. My behaviour that night was not acceptable - but it wasn't a crime."


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/spo...-directly.html

Originally Posted by martyh (Post 35864071)

So what ? plenty of people lie and then stick to that lie because the lie is better than the truth




Yes i am blaming her for allowing a man to sit in jail without putting the record straight why is that so hard to grasp ? If you don't like the fact that she has been shown to be a (insert word of your own choice because mine appears to offend you ) then stop attacking people who can see her for what she is,we aren't all as naive as you .People are very quick to jump on men when they behave grubby ,have look at the start of this thread,why all the sympathy when women behave just as grubby .

---------- Post added at 18:54 ---------- Previous post was at 18:49 ----------



and i have never said she has accused them of rape .However she has allowed the idea that she was raped by 2 men to be perpetuated enough to send one of the accused to jail .

---------- Post added at 19:04 ---------- Previous post was at 18:54 ----------

Anyway ,i am now going to pull out of this thread because i see no point in going over the same arguments with people as naive as some of the posters in this thread .It's just a shame she couldn't remember what happened as well as she remembered where she left the pizza she left the room to scoff :rolleyes:

Originally Posted by TheDaddy (Post 35864103)

Iirc she was treated as a hostile witness by the prosecution because of her lack of cooperation. Evans himself doesn't blame her or condone the abuse she has suffered so perhaps if he doesn't others shouldn't either.

Originally Posted by martyh (Post 35864071)

Anyway ,i am now going to pull out of this thread

Originally Posted by Mr Banana (Post 35864060)

I think it was a situation that got taken out of our hands from an early stage. She never said anybody raped her. She said she had a blackout but that didn't mean, like it was said in court, that she didn't consent.

Originally Posted by Paul M (Post 35864141)

Wait ... if she never accused anyone of raping her then how did this become a case at all, why were both of them charged with anything at all ?

Originally Posted by techguyone (Post 35864149)

Was this about the time that a big win was mentioned with holidays and pink mini coopers mentioned on twitter (subsequently deleted) by she who must not be mentioned.

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 35864131)

Good, you've been talking bollocks throughout.

I suggest you make an appointment with a professional to talk through the issues you have with women.

Originally Posted by Maggy J (Post 35864156)

I'm even more convinced that to get true justice that both accuser and the defendant/s in rape cases should be anonymous.

Originally Posted by techguyone (Post 35864189)

Agreed, it might however put a spanner in the works for CPS/Police who seem to love to leak names in order to go fishing.

Originally Posted by Mr Banana (Post 35864454)

Oh dear - looks like Ched and family are going after people who dare to have a different opinion than the jury now. You would have thought he would want to keep his head down and get on with his life.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/spo...e-verdict.html

Originally Posted by Damien (Post 35864457)

Meh you have to accept the verdict of the court. If you say someone is guilty of rape and they've already been found not guilty then it's libelous/slanderous.

There are times you may not like it but if you go down the path of society second guessing guilt then you're going to cause more suffering and undermine justice. You would create a situation where going to court is itself a indication of guilt. It defeats the point.

Not to mention we weren't in the court. We are less equipped to judge the case than the jury.

The same goes for the people making allegations against the woman with no evidence what-so-ever by the way.

Originally Posted by Osem (Post 35864461)

The more this footage is viewed (and I haven't seen it and don't want to) or quoted, I'd have thought the better his case will be if it's ultimately decided that he has been slandered/libelled.

Originally Posted by Osem (Post 35864461)

The more this footage is viewed (and I haven't seen it and don't want to) or quoted, I'd have thought the better his case will be if it's ultimately decided that he has been slandered/libelled.

Originally Posted by Mr Banana (Post 35864466)

It's on the Daily Mirrors website, so his beef would be with them as well as Gloria I assume?