亚洲av综合久久伊人,国产日韩久久免费影院,中日韩激情白浆一区二区三区,AV片在线观看

The full text of the comment I posted was as follows:

“Is it even permissible nowadays to express the view that you actually believe that Ched Evans is innocent? (I guess I'll find out in a few minutes.)

Because I don't believe he raped the woman. I've seen all the evidence that was put before the jury, and I find their decisions bewildering.

There are two videos that show the woman arriving at the hotel with McDonald. There is nothing at all in her conduct in either of these two videos to suggest that she was so drunk that she didn't know what she was doing. Based on the videos alone, you couldn't even say with any certainty that she was drunk at all. When she was tested the following day after her visit to the police station her blood alcohol count was zero. She never gave any evidence about what happened in the hotel room because her story all along was that she didn't remember anything between being in the kebab shop and waking up the following day.

The jury's decision was completely perverse. In convicting Evans while acquitting McDonald they essentially decided that the same person, in the same place, at one and the same time, was both too drunk to give valid consent to sex, and not too drunk to give valid consent to sex.”

In no way does this comment come close to contravening any of the paper’s published posting regulations. It simply expresses my view, and explains briefly why I hold that view. The Guardian newspaper is a private organisation and it is perfectly entitled to censor and ban whatever and whoever it pleases. But it should spare the rest of the world its nauseating, self-congratulatory rubbish about comment being ‘free’ and facts being ‘sacred’.