• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

The midweek/weekend games thread

whos fatter?

  • grant holt

    Votes: 2 10.5%

  • mark viduka

    Votes: 17 89.5%
  • Total voters
    19
She "went back" with McDonald who had sex with her, then invited Ched Evans over. Although the consent with McDonald is up for debate, I think it's pretty obvious what happened with Evans. There was also a guy watching from outside the room.

Glad to see a conviction in a rape case. So rarely happens. 5 years (2.5 on parole) is weak though.
 
DHSF said:
So just out of interest - she consented to CM but not to CE?

So therefore what did CM do about it? nothing?
Click to expand...

I can't see how one of them could have raped her and not the other. Seems ridiculous to me. If rape did genuinely take place the clown shoe deserves to get banged up, but you can never be sure these days as alot of drunk slappers just pull the rape card out or "my drink got spiked".
 
Steed Train said:
I can't see how one of them could have raped her and not the other. Seems ridiculous to me. If rape did genuinely take place the clown shoe deserves to get banged up, but you can never be sure these days as alot of drunk slappers just pull the rape card out or "my drink got spiked".
Click to expand...

It's explained the post above.
 
Steed Train said:
I can't see how one of them could have raped her and not the other. Seems ridiculous to me. If rape did genuinely take place the clown shoe deserves to get banged up, but you can never be sure these days as alot of drunk slappers just pull the rape card out or "my drink got spiked".
Click to expand...

It's all down to doubt. The jury can not be sure the girl didn't want to go home with the guy. However, they obviously decided that she definitely did not want some other guy turning up too. I would have done them both. But that's the only explanation I can see.

And no, a girl being drunk isn't an excuse for rape. That is quite simply a shocking and all too common view that men have.
 
Steed Train said:
I can't see how one of them could have raped her and not the other. Seems ridiculous to me. If rape did genuinely take place the clown shoe deserves to get banged up, but you can never be sure these days as alot of drunk slappers just pull the rape card out or "my drink got spiked".
Click to expand...


I was a juror in a rape case a couple of years ago and was really, really worried that I'd have to make a judgement purely based on He Said v. She Said.

But when all the evidence is laid out day after day, when the accused and accuser both get to have their say and when the judge directs the jury on the pertinent law, there is very little doubt left as to the verdict the jury should reach. I am 100% confident the verdict we came to was the correct one.
 
JoeTHFC said:
the judge said she was 'too drunk to consent'. so at what point did she sober up?
Click to expand...
Was thinking this. She said that she was too drunk to consent (and claimed she 'might' have been spiked) - but McDonald is not guilty? I presume that he had sex with her first, but if she was too drunk then she wouldn't consent with him either?

A couple of blokes 'watching from a window' - what a bunch of pathetic human beings they must be also.
 
chancer said:
I was a juror in a rape case a couple of years ago and was really, really worried that I'd have to make a judgement purely based on He Said v. She Said.

But when all the evidence is laid out day after day, when the accused and accuser both get to have their say and when the judge directs the jury on the pertinent law, there is very little doubt left as to the verdict the jury should reach. I am 100% confident the verdict we came to was the correct one.
Click to expand...

Sadly it often is he said v she said.

According to a news report on BBC One presented in 12 November 2007, there were 85,000 women raped in the UK in the previous year, equating to about 230 cases every day. The 2006-07 British Crime Survey reports that 1 in every 200 women suffered from rape in that period. It also showed that only 800 people were convicted of rape crimes that same year, meaning that less than 1 in every 100 rape survivors were able to convict their attacker.
Click to expand...
 
Park Lane James said:
Was thinking this. She said that she was too drunk to consent (and claimed she 'might' have been spiked) - but McDonald is not guilty? I presume that he had sex with her first, but if she was too drunk then she wouldn't consent with him either?

A couple of blokes 'watching from a window' - what a bunch of pathetic human beings they must be also.
Click to expand...

thats why i dont get how macdonald and the people watching through the window got off scot free if they knew he was raping her? (if it happened)
 
What's funny (read: sad) is that people are doubting the GIRL because the others were let off. "if it happened" - it did, Ched Evans was convicted. Rather than question the girl in the case, question the judge/jury.
 
I do not understand how there can be a trial, considering the women in question has no recollection of the sexual acts, therefore how did she not or did give consent and remember.
 
tommysvr said:
...and that means she consented?? Dear oh dear.
Click to expand...

No... of course not. I didn't say that. I'm asking the question, if on one hand she doesn't know what happened, which lets be honest, 100s of people each week it happens too, how can they then go back and call it rape.

If its rape then our prisons would be full up with people in Ched Evans position.
 
JoeTHFC said:
thats why i dont get how macdonald and the people watching through the window got off scot free if they knew he was raping her? (if it happened)
Click to expand...
Presumably that'd be a different charge, perverting the course of justice, or perjury, or whatever? The prosecution obviously thought they were both guilty of rape, but in MacDonald's case didn't prove it to the jury's satisfaction.
 
I can only imagine that evidence given by others(not the girl on whether she consented or not) has transpired in the result of giving a rape conviction.
 
tommysvr said:
...and that means she consented?? Dear oh dear.
Click to expand...

nope it doesnt mean she consented but it also means she doesnt know if she had consented. Beyond reasonable doubt right?

I dont know the full facts so I cant say whether CM is guilty CE is guilty or both are guilty and I have no feelings or any loyalty towards them.
 
If she went back with one man, and got banged, got drunk, then another turned up and raped her, it would make more sense
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back