Chit Chat
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
These 178 comments are related to the topic:
Ched Evans wins appeal
Ched Evans wins appeal
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 178
|
By:
Fook off
 |
|
By:
Well that proves my point, crags, you are not a REAL MAN.
REAL MEN do not descend into obscenity when they have lost an argument |
|
By:
Just remind me when I lost this argument? You attention seeking weirdo.
 |
|
By:
Theres a bit of irony in that post crags.
 |
|
By:
Only in your mind, akabula.
|
|
By:
Thanks, akabula
The irony is that you, as well as burton brewers, seek attention by always coming on to any thread I am on and commenting on anything I say. What is that but being an attention seeking weirdo? My posts are mainly about the subject matter which I am perfectly entitled to do, yours however are those of a one trick pony endlessly repeating your stupid ideas about my gender. |
|
By:
Fair enough, dave x
|
|
By:
You do seem to mention the fact that you are indeed female in a lot of your posts, mind. Can't think of many women who would do that, and you won't meet terry or me. Are you Trans? or obese, maybe?
|
|
By:
Can't think of many women who would do that
TBH crags I can't think of many men who would act like you. |
|
By:
You are just a bit dim, akabula.
No more wasting of my time on this. I only commented because of the bloke like post from annie, though annie seems to think that I pick out his/her posts. |
|
By:
Not dim crags but I have noticed you do tend to follow Annie around just to have a dig.
Never understood that type of mentality. |
|
By:
Of course you pick on my posts, crags!
Although it is now just you and burton-brewers that are so stupid that you think I am still a man. I have been honest, as I take a pride in in real life, that I won't meet posters from here because I am an old woman and I do not wish to be demeaned by comments about my appearance. I don't see men having to be met and their looks ridiculed. |
|
By:
You must be a right munter!
 |
|
By:
Oh dear.
 |
|
By:
You would not say that to a man, crags. Why do men have to judge women on their looks.
I was lucky when I was young because I was attractive and had no problem getting men. However, I do not mind being old, been there, done that. I think you have shown exactly how nasty you are by that comment, crags. I am on here discuss issues of the day, not keep on about my gender. I am sick of it. Betfair have done nothing about you or burton brewers. If it keeps on I WILL ASK FOR YOU TO BE BANNED. I have made a point of not asking this, but I think now I have no choice. |
|
By:
There are always obvious obvious flaws in the posts by annie. I wouldn't ridicule her if I met her, no matter what she looked like- and I'm certain that terry wouldn't as well. So why does annie say stupid things like " I don't see men having to be met and their looks ridiculed"?
Utter tosh. |
|
By:
And this after you just posted ' she must be a right munter' . You contradict yourself, crags.
|
|
By:
And again, what 'obvious flaws' are there in my posts? Name them or shut the **** up
 I know I am probably playing into your hands replying but I just think that if I don't reply to your outrageous allegations that posters might believe you. Crags, I am warning you, leave me alone. I have a right to post without you hassling me. |
|
By:
Posting things that make sense now and then might help your cause
 |
|
By:
Such as?
You keep saying that i don't make sense, implying that I am lying, but when questioned you cannot provide any examples. I will not be accused of lying. |
|
By:
See above ^^^
|
|
By:
The Kestrel 9% lager must be kicking in, old dear. On top of all that cheap wine
|
|
By:
That's a post to someone (you) who is being evasive.
|
|
By:
crags must be on some kind of bonus but it would have to be a big one with all this overtime he's putting in to annie.
|
|
By:
Do you never sleep, EO?
|
|
By:
FFS this is embarrassing.
|
|
By:
I usually turn in around 2am crags. I'm on call but it's rare to get a call out after then. Which is why you don't often see me posting until late morning unless there's a big fight in the middle of the night.
|
|
By:
akabula just doesn't get it
 |
|
By:
|
|
By:
Ffs Ebul you must have had it explained to you about 300 times on previous threads why legally Evans could be convicted of Rape and not McDonald. Cry
You can explain it to me until the cows come home, you won't convince me, Shrewde Dude. I have given MY OPINION that is all, I still believe it. The law is not always right, but if you think it is fair enough Men have always judged Women on their looks Annie, I know it may seem unfair, but that is the way evolution has decreed. Both men and women are trapped in this. |
|
By:
Ebul fair enough if that is your opinion. But when you use phrases such as "this is not what the law says" then forgive people people for presuming that you are actually talking about the law as in the system of rules present in the justice system as opposed to what you think the law should be.
|
|
By:
When I said that, I was referring to the law, if you read my post properly
People said it was ok to have 2 verdicts because McDonald had more reason to believe she was consenting than Evans? But the law does not say that, it only talks about whether the women was capable of consent or not. So the only issue is her capability to give consent, which must be the same for both men. My OWN OPINION is that was capable of giving consent, so to me it was never rape. I think the law at the moment is wrong, because it puts everything on men. Women should take responsibility for their own decisions, and drink and drugs don't change that. I do not think it is a man's job to check whether she is capable of giving consent, as far as he is concerned she says YES or NO, if the answer is yes there is no rape, if the answer is no or she cannot give an answer at all, then it is rape. |
|
By:
This is the law
person may lack capacity to consent it they are seriously impaired by drug or alcohol use. English law makes it clear that a person who is intoxicated may not have the capacity to consent to sexual acts, even if they are conscious. This means that while it is possible to consent when intoxicated, a person may sometimes be too drunk to give effective consent. It is impossible to draw a clear line between someone who is drunk but still able to consent, and someone who is too drunk to consent. The only way to avoid a terrible mistake is to err on the side of caution. (See R v Bree [2007] EWCA Crim 804). The problem is this line It is impossible to draw a clear line between someone who is drunk but still able to consent, and someone who is too drunk to consent How on earth is a man supposed to work that out????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? |
|
By:
Whatever surely it must apply be to both men, unless you think that McDonald erred on the side of caution and Evans did not.
This all very iffy? That is why we have lawyers, juries and judges...but it still does not necessarily mean a correct verdict is reached IN MY OPINION. |
|
By:
I have some sympathy with your view regarding the merits of how the law is drawn ebul but it is clear. The following sentence is key:
The only way to avoid a terrible mistake is to err on the side of caution. (See R v Bree [2007] EWCA Crim 804). It transfers responsibility for assessing whether a woman is capable at that time of consenting to the manand saying to him if you are in doubt then behave sensibly. The difference between the two men is simple. Despite the woman clearly being very drunk the pattern of her behaviour leading up to sex was consistent with her being an active and willing participant. It is far less clear in that respect with regards to Evans. |
|
By:
When I said that, I was referring to the law, if you read my post properly
People said it was ok to have 2 verdicts because McDonald had more reason to believe she was consenting than Evans? But the law does not say that, it only talks about whether the women was capable of consent or not. This is the law person may lack capacity to consent it they are seriously impaired by drug or alcohol use. English law makes it clear that a person who is intoxicated may not have the capacity to consent to sexual acts, even if they are conscious. This means that while it is possible to consent when intoxicated, a person may sometimes be too drunk to give effective consent. It is impossible to draw a clear line between someone who is drunk but still able to consent, and someone who is too drunk to consent. The only way to avoid a terrible mistake is to err on the side of caution. (See R v Bree [2007] EWCA Crim 804). Ebul I did read your post properly and you are continuing to talk your usual mince as per usual. This is the law. (1)A person (A) commits an offence if— (a)he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with his penis, (b)B does not consent to the penetration, and (c)A does not reasonably believe that B consents. (2)Whether a belief is reasonable is to be determined having regard to all the circumstances, including any steps A has taken to ascertain whether B consents. (3)Sections 75 and 76 apply to an offence under this section. (4)A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for life. It is blatantly clear from the Sexual Offences Act 2003 S.1(1)(c) that a jury is entitled to reach two different verdicts in the case of a rape trial involving two accused where the complainer has been held to not have consented on the basis of intoxication or any other reason if they find that one of the accused did reasonably believe that the complainer consented. The law could not be more unambiguous that it can (in your words) ave 2 verdicts because McDonald had more reason to believe she was consenting than Evans |
|
By:
But this is all judgement by the man. If he gets its wrong he is done for rape. The only reason you are saying it, is because it is less clear
with Evans as nobody knows what happened inside that room......that should not be enough to convict him of rape People should not convicted when nobody knows exactly what happened, we are suppose to presume innocence until proved guilty, not the other way round. I don't agree this law anyway as I said before, it is charter for false rape claims. But I don't see he has proved guilty by the law as it stands because of lack of evidence. 2 verdicts because McDonald had more reason to believe she was consenting than Evans How do you know that for certain???????????????????????????????????????????????? You are making an assumption, this is not proof |
|
By:
If the look at the events of the evening I would say McDonald had more idea she was drunk than Evans did.
But by what she said..."don't leave me,McDonald"..then it is reasonable supposition to say she was agreeable to sex. Nobody knows what was said when Evans arrived, and that is the problem. So nobody knows exactly whether Evans had reasonable belief You have added a bit more to Eternals original definition have you not Shrewd. |