Sorry, it's Ched Evans again.

[treaclesoda]

Apologies if anyone has already started a thread on this. I know there are plenty of threads here about Ched Evans, but this one has particularly annoyed me. Apparently even being found guilty doesn't really mean that we can be sure he is guilty.

I know that there are sometimes miscarriages of justice, although frankly I would be astound if the Ched Evans case is one of them. But if we are to take the view that even a guilty verdict has to be treated as not really proving guilt, then what is the point in having a trial in the first place? being victimised link

When I say 'this one has particularly annoyed me' I mean the points raised in this particular article.

And apparently I'm so annoyed that my ability to construct a sentence has deserted me.

Once someone is convicted, they are legally deemed guilty until that conviction is overturned on appeal. That is a matter of fact and law.

The article's author is misconceived in mislabelling the conviction as an "allegation"

I should point out for anyone who hasn't read the link that it's not the author of the news article who is saying this, but a lawyer who wrote an article that was published on, and then removed from, the Professional Footballers Association of Ireland website.

It is saddening to read that from a Lawyer.

I agree with Gobbolino. Ched Evans and others around him, should be speaking out very loudly that they understand that until the conviction has been overturned, it would be highly inappropriate to even consider returning to a high profile career as a role model in the public eye, since clearly this disregards the law and gives the message that it would be appropriate for ALL convicted rapists seeking appeal to do so.

If he is innocent, then we, as a state, should compensate him fairly when and if his conviction is overturned.

Pam Hunter's response is spot on.