Search results

Personally I think being allowed to train would be good. If he is later found not-guilty, it would take him time to get back, so the sooner he starts training the better. It would be quite wrong of sponsors etc to object IMO.

It's like banging your head against a brick wall. Stupid is as stupid does.

We haven't had the re-trial yet, but until we do, innocent until proven guilty.

Yes, exactly, but that's not what you said. You said: "If Evans is found not guilty of rape then he is a victim, which would mean she wasn't raped and, again, is not a victim!" "And if found not guilty there is only one victim. And it's not the anonymous young lady" That is wrong, as it's...

No, not THE victim. Possibly A victim, the case could have 2 of them. In a murder trial, if the defendant is found not guilty, do you think that means there was no victim? Of course not, the person who was murdered is still the victim. In a rape case, there will often be a victim without anyone...

What about loss of earnings! :eek:

I don't think you're in a position to make these statements. Even when a man is found not guilty, that doesn't mean there was no rape, it just means there's not enough evidence to convict beyond reasonable doubt. It would still be possible she was a victim. One thing at a time, we don't seem to...

No! She did not put him through trial, the crown prosecution did. I have never believed the correct verdict was given, but that's not the girl's fault.

If jurors can be found that don't know about the case, I'm not sure what it's got to do with his lawyers. Besides, I'd think Evans will want a retrial, in order to clear his name. Although if he does know he's innocent, I can understand if he's lost faith with the justice system.

I expect a lot of people will know between very little and nothing about it.

There is no suggestion she lied. She did not accuse anyone of anything, she said she couldn't remember.

That's not necessary. They may have found the original verdict unsafe because the jury gave it without the knowledge of some evidence. They could have a retrial with that evidence and their verdict (whatever it might be) would be safe.

Bloody hell, here we go again.

Oh but they can. They can even walk around in their high heels. But they won't remember it.

Nope, still illegal. You can't give consent to have sex in the future. You need to be capable of giving consent at the time.

Ok, so how about you've made the tea, and you're about to give it to them, but you realise they're too drunk to know what they're doing - should you then withhold the tea, and say they can't have it?

No. As an example and to be clear, it is illegal for your partner to wake you up with a BJ. Which is a shame.

I like it. But, what if your friend is drunk and asks for tea, and you make them the tea, and give them the tea, and they've about to drink it, but you think they won't remember this in the morning, because they're really shit-faced - do you grab the tea off them and refuse to let them have the...

Just in case you're checking your rights, no BG, it doesn't mean that. And no one said it did. There are just media reports, that's all. It's all speculation at this point, we don't know.

No, so perhaps that's not the evidence that's lead to an appeal.