Ched Evans Jailed...

[Chinaspur]

So he wasn't charged or convicted of anything then ?
Thus is innocent. Not sure what your problem is. It's how the law works and has done for years.

My 'problem' is this: the police did not find any evidence that he committed the crime. They couldn't do because the allegation was so clearly made up. However, they refused to interview any of the ten plus witnesses who would exonerate him or consider loads of other documented evidence. They exclusively looked for evidence to convict which they failed to find any of.

The police then convinced the accuser to withdraw their allegation as they wouldn't get a conviction (they told us they had done this - I strongly suspect this is because the particular force has a poor record for securing sexual assault convictions or failing to prosecute the same offences). The accuser withdrew the allegation whilst maintaining it was true. The police then informed him that if the accuser ever changed their mind they would re-arrest him.

They begged the police to continue to investigate to once and for all clear their name but to no avail.

The police then reported to their workplace that the case was unsubstantiated and that the employer was within their rights to fire him, because no evidence had been seen that proved his innocence (they never looked for any so this is unsurprising). He was fired and now has a record that means he can never go back to his chosen career.

If you describe that as being considered 'innocent' @rich75 then you have a lower standard of the concept than I do.

 

[thinktank]

My 'problem' is this: the police did not find any evidence that he committed the crime. They couldn't do because the allegation was so clearly made up. However, they refused to interview any of the ten plus witnesses who would exonerate him or consider loads of other documented evidence. They exclusively looked for evidence to convict which they failed to find any of.

The police then convinced the accuser to withdraw their allegation as they wouldn't get a conviction (they told us they had done this - I strongly suspect this is because the particular force has a poor record for securing sexual assault convictions or failing to prosecute the same offences). The accuser withdrew the allegation whilst maintaining it was true. The police then informed my father that if the accuser ever changed their mind they would re-arrest him.

They begged the police to continue to investigate to once and for all clear their name but to no avail.

The police then reported to their workplace that the case was unsubstantiated and that the employer was within their rights to fire him, because no evidence had been seen that proved his innocence (they never looked for any so this is unsurprising). He was fired and now has a record that means he can never go back to his chosen career.

If you describe that as being considered 'innocent' @rich75 then you have a lower standard of the concept than I do.

Shocking, disgusting and plain scandalous that we have regressed to this level.

The Law's not even an ass anymore...it's a fucking amoeba.

 

[rich75]

My 'problem' is this: the police did not find any evidence that he committed the crime. They couldn't do because the allegation was so clearly made up. However, they refused to interview any of the ten plus witnesses who would exonerate him or consider loads of other documented evidence. They exclusively looked for evidence to convict which they failed to find any of.

The police then convinced the accuser to withdraw their allegation as they wouldn't get a conviction (they told us they had done this - I strongly suspect this is because the particular force has a poor record for securing sexual assault convictions or failing to prosecute the same offences). The accuser withdrew the allegation whilst maintaining it was true. The police then informed my father that if the accuser ever changed their mind they would re-arrest him.

They begged the police to continue to investigate to once and for all clear their name but to no avail.

The police then reported to their workplace that the case was unsubstantiated and that the employer was within their rights to fire him, because no evidence had been seen that proved his innocence (they never looked for any so this is unsurprising). He was fired and now has a record that means he can never go back to his chosen career.

If you describe that as being considered 'innocent' @rich75 then you have a lower standard of the concept than I do.

As fas as I'm aware the "unsubstantiated" ruling, as it were, has been around for years and is used in cases where there's not enough evidence to legally prove guilt but where the allegation has nothing about it to suggest it's unfounded. The only difference in recent times is that the allegation is left on record for a period of time, which I think was done after the Soham case as Huntley had had allegations of abuse levelled at him but because they weren't on his record a CRB check didn't show them up.

None of this does what you initially said it did which is to change the presumption of innocence to a presumption of guilt. The fact that your father was never charged nor found guilty is the simple proof that in the eye of the law he remains innocent.

You can certainly argue about whether allegations should remain on record despite never being proven or not but that's a separate issue to presumption of innocence.

 

[rich75]

OK I will. His guilty sentence has been quashed by jurisdciton. That is ,three judges have looked at evidence not submited to the original trial. They have agreed that if this evidence had been submited the jury may have come to a different conclusion. That means he is innocent, he doesn't have to prove this, the crown has to prove his guilt. At this point BY LAW he hasn't been charged with a crime, regardless of what has happened before, he has to be charged and plea to the charges against him, this means he is an innocent man.The trouble is there are some dickheads, you included, who don't have the mental capacity to understand the laws of this land.

Fascinating stuff but given I was responding to a claim that the presumption of innocence had changed to a presumption of guilt your post is completely irrelevant. I didn't even refer to Evans nor anything to do with his innocence or guilt.

 

[rich75]

The man lost his job, his financial security, is mentally broken, and I guarantee you that without Chinaspur saying it he also lost aspects and people in his social life. The man was punished regardless of court action or not. I also guarantee you that nothing happened to the false accuser who maliciously ruined his life.

One day you'll know somebody whose life was ruined by a false rape or domestic violence claim. I hope you'll open your eyes then because right now your eyes are sewn shut.

None of which has anything to do with the point I was refuting that the presumption of innocence has been changed to a presumption of guilt.

 

[Chinaspur]

As fas as I'm aware the "unsubstantiated" ruling, as it were, has been around for years and is used in cases where there's not enough evidence to legally prove guilt but where the allegation has nothing about it to suggest it's unfounded. The only difference in recent times is that the allegation is left on record for a period of time, which I think was done after the Soham case as Huntley had had allegations of abuse levelled at him but because they weren't on his record a CRB check didn't show them up.

None of this does what you initially said it did which is to change the presumption of innocence to a presumption of guilt. The fact that your father was never charged nor found guilty is the simple proof that in the eye of the law he remains innocent.

You can certainly argue about whether allegations should remain on record despite never being proven or not but that's a separate issue to presumption of innocence.

Firstly the unsubstantiated ruling was given despite no evidence whatsoever being discovered, not 'not enough' as you describe.

How can you possibly claim he is 'presumed innocent' when the police have actively barred him from his career as a result of the allegations? If he was presumed innocent they would have let him go back to work. He has effectively been presumed maybe guilty.

 

[thinktank]

Firstly the unsubstantiated ruling was given despite no evidence whatsoever being discovered, not 'not enough' as you describe.

How can you possibly claim he is 'presumed innocent' when the police have actively barred him from his career as a result of the allegations? If he was presumed innocent they would have let him go back to work. He has effectively been presumed maybe guilty.

I admire your stamina.

He doesn't want to get it.

 

[Chinaspur]

I admire your stamina.

He doesn't want to get it.

To be honest I understand that. Who would want to believe in a system that can destroy you on completely groundless allegations which are easily disprovable. I would probably be naively spouting bullshit in defence of the system had I not had such a painful ringside seat to the truth.

I only hope he and anyone else on here is never subject to a made up allegation of rape because the sad fact is that justice is often unabtainable and the process will frequently destroy the accused.

 

[rich75]

Firstly the unsubstantiated ruling was given despite no evidence whatsoever being discovered, not 'not enough' as you describe.

How can you possibly claim he is 'presumed innocent' when the police have actively barred him from his career as a result of the allegations? If he was presumed innocent they would have let him go back to work. He has effectively been presumed maybe guilty.

First point : Then you should go back to the police and question their ruling. Unsubstantiated has a pretty clear definition in law, if you don't think it's been met then question it.

Second Point : The police haven't barred him from anything. The law as it currently stands says that allegations remain on record. There's nothing the police can do about that, it's a governmental regulation. If you don't agree you can apply to have them struck off. It's not easy but the option is there.

He has not been presumed guilty at all. He has an allegation on his file. How society chooses to perceive that is different to presumption of guilt in law.

Look, I'm not arguing with you that what you're going through is tough, nor am I arguing that in the case of an innocent person the way the law works if problematic to say the least.

However there are reasons the law was put in place, namely Huntley, and whilst the blanket nature of the law is difficult, the intent of it is understandable.

If you believe your father is innocent and can prove it with statements etc then you can get that allegation removed from his record. There is a process in place to allow you to do that. It won't be straightforward and it will take time and none of that is agreeable as an innocent party. However those strictures are in place to prevent Huntley happening again.

I'm not saying it's right or wrong, I think it's grey. The only thing I do think and which is why we started this conversation is that the presumption of innocence is still there.

 

[ethanedwards]

I admire your stamina.

He doesn't want to get it.

 

[ethanedwards]

Get what? He has set down a logical argument.

 

[LSUY]

He's signing for Chesterfield today.

Can see him getting a lot of abuse from opposition fans.

 

[OneHotspur1988]

I fear he may be in for a season of absolute abuse, top bants lads.

 

[tototoner]

This statement from him isn't going to endear him to the Chesterfield fans, who he has a battle with to appease already

 

[beats1]

This statement from him isn't going to endear him to the Chesterfield fans, who he has a battle with to appease already

View attachment 23692

What a knob, he should be grateful for chesterfield agreeing to give him a contract especially since he has played football in yonks.

I did wonder whether this deal was more to do with someone his family knows at the club but at least be humble when given another chance

 

[CJMurray]

This statement from him isn't going to endear him to the Chesterfield fans, who he has a battle with to appease already

View attachment 23692

That looks fake to me. Font doesn't look right.

 

[UncleBuck]

This statement from him isn't going to endear him to the Chesterfield fans, who he has a battle with to appease already

View attachment 23692

What a prat, if I was the Chesterfield chairman I'd rip his contract up, who on earth does he think he is?

 

[thinktank]

This statement from him isn't going to endear him to the Chesterfield fans, who he has a battle with to appease already

View attachment 23692

He's being honest. Nothing wrong with that. Don't think their fans will be under any illusions. He's naturally wanna get back near to the level he was at.

 

[tototoner]

What a knob, he should be grateful for chesterfield agreeing to give him a contract especially since he has played football in yonks.

I did wonder whether this deal was more to do with someone his family knows at the club but at least be humble when given another chance

Danny Wilson managed him before

 

[Real_madyidd]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-37659009

Innocent...well well well