Ched Evans apologises for his innocence?
- CW
- Oct 16, 2016
- 3 min read

I don’t really believe in tempting people to give evidence for crimes with any money at all as I genuinely believe if you witnessed a crime you have a duty to share such information with the police. It should be a moral responsibility to the truth.
But…PAH…how silly I am, referring to the legal system and “truth” in the same blog like they ever cross paths! How naïve!
However, it has rattled my cage even further that so much criticism has been levelled at the Ched Evans case where even now the anti-Ched clan are going after the idea that people who were able to give witness to his innocence were being offered £50,000 as a reward.
Buying the Truth?
Cash offers are made for witness or information for crimes all the time – you only have to watch “Crimewatch” to hear the police make such an offer based on information that leads to successful prosecution.
On top of that, literally thousands of people make false allegations of rape or sexual assault in order to claim the cash payment compensation. (Don’t even DARE challenge me on that. I know it happens, and even know someone who was offered such compensation to make up a false story in a child sex abuse claim…offered by police officers. I won’t name them without their consent…but they have told their story on the issue.)
So with that in mind, if we are to accept the offer of money rewards to people who can provide factual accounts OF TRUTH that help to prove guilt, why can we not accept the same thing to prove innocence? Why should someone who is innocent not be allowed to “tempt” witness with offers of cash as long as the witness is truthful and can substantiate the evidence?
Or are we only going to say it shouldn’t be allowed in sex cases because we still presume guilt?
What was Ched apologising for, exactly?
I am shocked and appalled that it is Ched Evans who came out of court and apologised to all those affected by this case. I mean – good on him for taking the moral high ground, but he is not the one who should be apologising for his behaviour. He did not have sex with two women and then claim he was too drunk to have consented and then tried to ruin their lives with a public trial.
This sexist attitude – dominated by fascist feminazis – that women are the eternal victim is dangerous. I am not saying this as a man; I am saying this as someone who has supported victims of abuse, and victims of false allegations for years. I know many, many women who are furious that we live in a society that treats men in this way.
Why?
Because their husbands, fathers, brothers and sons have faced the false allegation destruction. I know of innocent men committing suicide – and some who tried, but failed. I know of boys as young as 12 years old being falsely accused. I know of at least one case where a judge even said he didn’t think the claimant was truthful in her account, but STILL found the boy guilty on multiple counts of rape. (Yes…you DID read that right…).
And now Ched Evans, a man who was falsely imprisoned for a crime that he not only did commit, but a crime that did not even occur, comes out and apologises to everyone who has been affected?!
Law - the poor bastard child
Our legal system has become the poor bastard child of an unrequited love affair between the law, justice and truth, where those who wield the power are as politically corrupt as the moral rapists that write the tabloids.
We should be ashamed of our legal system – ashamed that it is whored out to the corrupt, self-serving politicians who spend more on their daft white wigs than the average person can get in legal aid to defend themselves from the next two-bit-lying slut after some quick cash.
If anyone really did get rewarded with £50,000 to help secure Ched’s innocence: good for you. I wish you could have done it just out of conscience, but I no longer care. If we have a legal system where false prosecutions are for sale to the highest bidder, then let’s fight back with honest money to save even a single person who is innocent.
Of course…that still means we have a two-tiered legal system…where your verdict can be bought by the highest bidder.
Comments