Quote:
Originally Posted by martyh
Wow ,such an insightful post ,clearly you have plenty of input ...........or just trolling again 
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 |
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."