GVOWL Posted April 20, 2012 Share Posted April 20, 2012 Maybe Ched should use the Macdonald defence team, in the event of an appeal! For now we have to accept the guilty verdict. non of us know the true facts, non of use were in court, but every one of us accept rape as/is a serious crime.. You lot really are the dregs.You were all running about like a dog with 2 tails the other week when you thought Milan The Man was going down. Evans has been found guilty,get over it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Where's Spot Posted April 20, 2012 Share Posted April 20, 2012 Best post across all forums which ive read in this whole horrible time...... For what its worth which is jack all, this is my view... How many times do you sit down with the person your about to have sex with and say 'now love, are you sure your ok with me having sex with you' and waiting until she utters thw word 'yes please screw me'. MY opinion (which is worth nowt) is that she reciprocated, and by that i mean didnt pull away or say 'no'. I doubt he pinned her down and forced himself in her while she tried to pull away! So yes techinically as she didnt say 'yes' in the eyes of the law its rape, is it in a normal persons eyes? I doubt it. I DO understand in the eyes of law what rape means (as ive just clearly explained that above) BUT from a normal persons point of view if the person your having sex with is reciprocating then its not rape. In my view he was stupid to put himself in such a position. I dont think stupidity deserves a guilty verdict. However if he forced himself inside her while it was clear she didnt want it then fair enough, guilty. I dont think this happened though." So if someone just lies there like a sack of spuds because they're too drunk to do anything about being raped then it means it's not rape? That sounds like a licence for rapists to drug their victims as much as they can, because from the above definition, unless he pins her down and she tries to pull away it's not rape! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted April 20, 2012 Share Posted April 20, 2012 It amazes me how people on here who have heard snippets on the news and articles in the newspapers/websites think they know more about the trial than the 12 jury members who have sat in the court for 10 days The jury have returned two mutually contradictory verdicts. Even without knowing any of the intimate details of the case, that alone is proof that one of those verdicts was inaccurate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Where's Spot Posted April 20, 2012 Share Posted April 20, 2012 Once agiain in the real world (you know the one which people dont earn tens of thousands a week) you get the sack, Immediately. I know this is true, Ive worked in HR, I dont need common sense for that its called experience. And an employer wouldn't necessarily wait for a guilty verdict before dismissing them - one of the benefits of only needing to prove a dismissal case on the balance of probabilities and not beyond reasonable doubt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JtotheC Posted April 20, 2012 Share Posted April 20, 2012 I think what this brings to light is the very fine line between rape and non-rape. When is rape actually rape, apart from the obvious 'attacks' etc. A case like this shows that sometimes yes could mean no depending on someones temporary mental capicity (through drink or otherwise) there are many many people who go out on a night out every weekend and have far too much to drink and end up in similar situations. What is the answer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
speedy69 Posted April 20, 2012 Share Posted April 20, 2012 The jury have returned two mutually contradictory verdicts. Even without knowing any of the intimate details of the case, that alone is proof that one of those verdicts was inaccurate. HeadingNorth, were you sat in the court like the other jurors? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sevenmonkeys Posted April 20, 2012 Share Posted April 20, 2012 If Evans did appeal and there was a trial, could McDonald then be found guilty at that trial? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lettie01 Posted April 20, 2012 Share Posted April 20, 2012 my opinion is..... innocent until proven guilty fact.... no jury gos 12-0 (guilty) then sentances a man to 5yrs in prison without hard evidence so there must be more evidence than we speculate (1 guilty 1 not) fact is he is a rapist an deserves to rot in prison with the rest of the rapists/murderers/peados Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JtotheC Posted April 20, 2012 Share Posted April 20, 2012 If Evans did appeal and there was a trial, could McDonald then be found guilty at that trial? Not unless new evidence is found, you cant be tried twice for the same crime Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Where's Spot Posted April 20, 2012 Share Posted April 20, 2012 If you actually had worked in HR you would know that it's illegal to fire anybody without going through normal disciplinary procedures. If SUFC had fired Evans this afternoon, they would lose a tribunal for unfair dismissal. Is that what you want? I think what the original poster meant was that he could be sacked for gross misconduct and therefore not be due any notice. This is different to not following disciplinary procedures. You can follow disciplinary procedures quickly and sack someone without notice at the hearing. You could literally do it within a matter of a few weeks (with the person suspended on full pay in the meantime) and you can do it fairly. I know, I also work in HR and have done it several times - although thankfully not in a case like this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts