Quote Originally Posted by World's End Stella View Post
I think his defence was very clear cut, he always said that she consented. Given that he always denied his guilt, that he had a reasonable defence, that the consent aspect of any rape conviction is a difficult one to prove and that an appeal process was underway; if I was going to 'comment' I would have held back a little on the sanctimony.

Many did. Many others did not. The latter now look a right set of muppets imo. I'm thinking primarily of those people who openly petitioned for him to not be signed by a professional football club even though his appeal was underway.
So let's say it's another offence - kiddie-fiddling or child porn, maybe. If your club were threatening to sign someone convicted of it, would you be perfectly happy for them to do so on the basis that he was appealing his conviction and had been punished enough?

Of course not - and neither would the thousands of knuckle-draggers who've been shouting his case all this time. He'd be untouchable. And that's the problem: there's a double standard in operation because it was 'just' rape and she was 'just a slag'.