Friday, 9 January 2015

Lets understand something…..

Edit:- Its not looking good for him!

Ched Evans found guilty of rape. Why? Is he guilty? According to the police,

The police arrested both Ched and Clayton at the station, they acknowledged that the only evidence that sexual activity had taken place was their admission. There was no complaint of rape, no forensic evidence, no injury and no complaint.

So why the feck did this case go to court? Why the feck did this chap do time ? Why the feck is he being pilloried now? Why did the other chap get off?

There is every possibility that Ched Evans is innocent of the charges against him. I am not a rape apologist. If he is guilty feck him, but is he guilty? The ‘lady’ in the case has no recollection of having sex with anyone. How the feck can he be guilty?

You can bet if and when this all comes out that he is innocent I will be here shouting at all the naysayers that have condemned him. And I will shout LOUD!!!

 

Edit:- Its not looking good for him!

4 comments:

Anne / Olly said...

But at the time of his trial, and as things currently stand, a jury of his peers have found him guilty.
He should appeal or serve his short for rape sentence

Tom and Jan said...

Hi Maffi
Try reading the statement on the Ched Evans website

http://chedevans.com/key-and-undisputed-facts

I wouldn't want my daughter anywhere near him!

Maffi said...

No complaint! No evidence of an offence1 Why did it ever go to court in the first place?
OPEN YOUR MIND!

Tramper said...

Whether or not he is guilty of rape seems irrelevant to the question of whether he should be able to continue to work as a professional footballer. Does anybody seriously expect a footballer to have a higher moral code than people not in the public eye? He is not required to undergo a Criminal Records check to play professionally as far as I am aware. Does his probation officer think it's inappropriate for him to play again? Mob rule, assisted by social media, has lead both to the woman's difficulties and to Ched Evans's.

I see little difference at an ethical level between the harrassment of these two protagonists and the actions of the murderous bastards who felt it was ok to shoot the staff of Charlie Hebdo because they had been rude about the Prophet Mohammed. All three groups seek to impose their will outside the rule of law.

If we subscribe to the fickle court of public opinion none of us are secure.