Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: Hope on April 21, 2016, 09:58:50 AM
-
It would appear that he has been cleared of the charges for which he was originally found guilty. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-36099522
Will folk who expressed their disgust with him back then, often with pretty effusive abuse, be tendering any apologies?
-
His conviction has been quashed and he will be sent to retrial (according to your link), so not yet "cleared".
Anyway, even assuming that he is not guilty of s criminal offence does not mean that you can't see him as a disgusting human being. Same for Whittingdale, tax dodgers etc.
-
It would appear that he has been cleared of the charges for which he was originally found guilty. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-36099522
Will folk who expressed their disgust with him back then, often with pretty effusive abuse, be tendering any apologies?
Why not ask them directly?
-
It would appear that he has been cleared of the charges for which he was originally found guilty. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-36099522
Will folk who expressed their disgust with him back then, often with pretty effusive abuse, be tendering any apologies?
He is facing a retrial so apologies need to be put on hold.
-
It's certainly a terrible thing for him to have his life destroyed in this way if he is innocent - but as floo points out, there is going to be a retrial
-
I was curious about the new evidence, but it can't be published, ahead of a retrial. The woman involved must be groaning in disbelief at having to go through it again.
-
I was curious about the new evidence, but it can't be published, ahead of a retrial. The woman involved must be groaning in disbelief at having to go through it again.
If she told the truth about Evans actions; is rotten for her to have to relive it all again.
-
The irony is, that it wasn't her who brought the rape action; she went to the police about her drink being spiked.
-
Not sure why it should involve her as, as far as I recollect, she had no memory of the event.
-
Why not ask them directly?
I have, Seb, in my OP. However, since the report became more detailed in the hour or so between the OP nd Udayana's initial response, the reference to 'quashed' was originally included, but no reference to a retrial - the report was only 6 or 8 lines long originally. I will therefore reserve my 'apologies' bit.
-
If the new evidence is such that he is definitely found not guilty then, yes, an apologies are in order. Let's wait and see, it's far from over.
Udayana: Anyway, even assuming that he is not guilty of s criminal offence does not mean that you can't see him as a disgusting human being. Same for Whittingdale, tax dodgers etc.
What on earth brought that on???? How very judgemental - if he is not guilty of a serious sex offence, he's dreadful anyway so it doesn't matter? Not precisely what you said, granted, but that was the implication - and what do Whittingdale and tax dodgers have to do with this case?
-
I was just saying .. how people are judged generally has nothing to do with whether they are breaking any laws or not. Of-course if someone is not guilty of a crime they should not be fined, sent to prison and so forth. However their activities and personality are still judged by others on a day to day basis.
-
Maybe so, but you said this particular guy could still be seen as ''a disgusting human being". Is he a disgusting human being? I'd never heard of him until now.
I did a search on him and found this Mail article which seems to explain why some don't like him:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3551612/KATIE-HOPKINS-lynch-mob-never-forgive-Ched-Evans-successful.html
-
hmm. well I'm not reading something from the Mail with Katie Hopkins in the title! :) ..
Disgust is an instinctive reaction closely related to moral judgement. So there is no need to withdraw expressions of disgust just on the basis that someone is formally cleared of a charge.
On Evans himself .. I'd certainly class as disgusting anyone joining in banging their friend's drunk 19 year old pick-up.
-
I don't know Hopkins and dislike the Mail as much as you but I thought the article was quite interesting.
We don't know the guy actually did what you say, let's wait and see what comes out in the new evidence. He's served two and a half years in jail already and if he has done nothing, that is dreadful.