Search results

Not it doesn't. Just means it couldn't evidentially be proven beyond all reasonable doubt she was raped. Totally different test. Out of curiosity - how about all the rape reports that don't get to trial? Is anyone alleging rape where offenders don't get found guilty at court not rape victims?

Yes there is. Being found not guilty is not the same as something not happening. She hasn't been proved to be lying in anyway.

What a strange view to take. Arguably there are two victims - depending on whether or not he is found guilty on a re-trial. Funnily enough I was talking about the girl who was until about half an hour ago a confirmed rape victim.

Would be amazed if that doesn't end no evidence offered now. Can't see the victim wanting to go through it all again after all these years.

Doesn't really affect all that has gone before - at the time he was (and still is at this stage) a convicted rapist.

He doesn't have to. Just making the point there is plenty he could show some sort of remorse for if he wanted to. I would imagine he would find a lot more people that would support his return to football if he did. You're right in that he'll never appease everyone. He won't appease everyone if...

No one is stupid enough to expect an apology for the act itself - especially given he feels he hasn't committed an offence and is going through an appeal. Nothing wrong with that. What he CAN apologise for, without affecting an appeal or the act itself in anyway, is some of his behaviour from...

Of course he can. Regardless of whether or not the appeal shows he is, or is not, a rapist plenty of his behaviour that night is pretty poor.

Doesn't make him any less of a convicted rapist.

Has been the case for some considerable time - maybe since the change of the sexual offences act in 2003 if not earlier. The Ched Evans case isn't really a landmark for this sort of thing.

I think you did the best thing leaving this thread originally.

And why should they say that either? They've no need to get involved one way or another. Like all the other ex convicts he is entirely justified to seek whatever employment he wishes including football such as Lee Hughes.

Why should they fork out money for a convicted rapist to be playing football? Why should he get some sort of special treatment? Madness.

Why on earth would they do that? He is quite clearly able to sign for another club. To start paying for loss revenue would be absolutely diabolical. Imagine how that looks to rape victims?

It's not a perfect system. It's the system we work too in this country though. Should we just take the word of everyone who says they are innocent then?

Just because you say you're innocent doesn't mean you are. Found guilty by a jury of his peers. He is a convicted rapist. Not that I think that should stop him having a career. He's paid his debt to society.