I Have Something to Say

Well i think the best way is leave it to the defendant to counter/accuse themselves. If it was automatic it would be a problem.

That's true but on the other hand giving people the power to potentially ruin someone's life without serious repercussions is also pretty unfair.

And if they are found guilty then the jail term would apply

Either of you guys read into the Ched Evans Rape case?

I've given it a look but i don't have enough information to make any statement or opinion on it.

From what iv'e gathered, 2 people had sex and one of them was drunk. There was a load of controversy over someones comment about it and loads of people apparently wished rape upon the persons daughter which is..hypocritical and typical of the western human race.

http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/ched-evans-rape-case-eight-key-questions-answered-1-7498678 that's what i'm basing this information off, and i don't read the star btw.

I got in early doors as he played for the football team I support. Over all else I realised that:
The law depends heavily on 12 good men and true - who have no idea about the law because they are laymen.
Judges can have bad days but you will never get anybody to admit the legal system is a crock.

Well i think it was recently they found a judge to be pro nazi and super right wing, and he's had a say on convictions for god knows how long. It's a very sociopathic job to have though, deciding the fate of others. The main difference is the people judging you weren't caught for their own crimes.

Sadly The Stir was one of the principle culprits in helping this case take the terrible turn it did and that article is from a year ago after he was found guilty. He has recently been found not guilty but to be fair the new evidence (once his legal people 'played' the system was tenuous). The original evidence would not get a person convicted in a thousand years but somehow it did.
(I know it seems very complicated but it was a hugely ludicrous scenery that should never have gone to court).

@Outoforbits: I agree with that 100% whether it's murder or a bit of tax evasion or speeding.

This is why the media gets it's vulture like persona. They sensationalize the wrong doings and sufferings of others for profit and they don't care about the damage they do. Theres so much irresponsible writing out there, a recent one was "what would happen if Russia nuked the UK?".
What an irresponsible article to put in a mainsteam newspaper.
Fear = £££/$$$ though, they should be held responsible for the information/writings they give out to the public.

At the time of the Evans case, a certain organisation was trying to distract everybody's attention from the fact that they'd been covering up the activities of a peadophile within their midst for 30 years. What better way than to make a hue and cry about something else? I am just glad it wasn't an ordinary person who would not have had the resources to eventually prove their innocence. The media is Satan incarnate and again I agree they should be more responsible with what they write (I'm guessing Lincolnshire where i live would be destroyed in a nuclear strike?)

Apparently not actually, it was mainly click bait but considering what some people will believe these days there's obviously some people at home now talking about what if. Nice, i have cousins in Grimsby lol.
Yes, it's long been a tool for distraction and misinformation since it began. The US government is the perfect example of constant distraction and cover up tactics.

Thankfully since people now have the ability and technology to take news into their own hands there are now independent news outlets like Vice actually talking to the people involved and not doing it with the main aim of profit and views.