[trickytrevsfanclub]

Goku said:

1466578172[/url]' post='1219383']
Is it at all relevant tho?

Of course it is, drugs change the way your mind works, if they didn't why would anyone take them.

[Goku]

trickytrevsfanclub, on 22 June 2016 - 01:35 PM, said:

Of course it is, drugs change the way your mind works, if they didn't why would anyone take them.

urgh for crying out loud how are you an enforcer of the law urghhhhhhhhhhh

yes, alcohol and drugs obviously affect your mind but you're still allowed to consent/refuse consent whilst you're on them. Similarly, if a girl is too f***ed up to consent due to a combination of alcohol and drugs then that doesn't give you a pass to stick your member in her.

This post has been edited by Goku: 22 June 2016 - 01:39 PM

[Snowflake McBedwetter]

Misnomer, on 22 June 2016 - 01:01 PM, said:

Listen, let me clarify. You specifically responded to my post about the incident in Faliraki...which was about immoral behaviour in general, not linked to what Ched Evans did; that's why I asked you to read back and said you were spouting tosh..the two aren't linked but you chose to form a link. If you think that is me giving you the big un, I'd say you are a very sensitive person; however, I will apologise to you for being slightly offensive, it wasn't my intention to upset you.

Onto the point about the judge leading the jury. I asked you because you have specifically made the same point twice ; this leads me to believe you have some knowledge of events in the courtroom that I do not have. I haven't read anything concrete that suggests the judge led the jury in this particular rape case; hence, my question to you. It's not about me not being bothered, it's about me not finding the same information as you. Has the judge now been struck off (if that's the terminology) for their irresponsible conduct?

Ok. Accepted. And I'll attempt to be equally civil in my response.

In my opinion, the judge should have told the jury that unless they could be sure that the woman in question hadn't consented, that they should find Evans not guilty, given that there was no perceivable change in circumstance between her liaison with McDonald and that of Evans. There are some links on here to the Mirror mentioning possible failings in his summing up and direction of the jury.

I agree that Evans was morally wrong in what he did, and so does he, he admitted as much at the time.

If you want to find out more the case notes are available i think.. but this wikipedia gives a decent overview https://en.wikipedia.../wiki/R_v_Evans

[Misnomer]

KevinArnottsGoldenBoot, on 22 June 2016 - 01:42 PM, said:

Ok. Accepted. And I'll attempt to be equally civil in my response.

In my opinion, the judge should have told the jury that unless they could be sure that the woman in question hadn't consented, that they should find Evans not guilty, given that there was no perceivable change in circumstance between her liaison with McDonald and that of Evans. There are some links on here to the Mirror mentioning possible failings in his summing up and direction of the jury.

I agree that Evans was morally wrong in what he did, and so does he, he admitted as much at the time.

If you want to find out more the case notes are available i think.. but this wikipedia gives a decent overview https://en.wikipedia.../wiki/R_v_Evans

Much appreciated.

I also respect your opinion on the judge. I have absolutely no knowledge whatsoever of judicial proceedings so I cannot reliably form an opinion one way or the other.

The only information I have to go on was provided by Sammy Spireite (thanks for that) which deconstructs events in court and the subsequent appeals, and concludes the antithesis of your own opinion.

https://www.crimelin...s-chedwyn-evans

My own opinion is that he is a contemptible egotistical scumbag (easily interpreted from his own words regarding events that night and other similar situations he was previously involved in) whom i have zero respect for. and, i do not understand why anyone would welcome such a massive c*** to cfc, regardless of whether or not he is guilty of rape.

In this particular case, based on what i have read, if i was a member of the jury, I would struggle to convict either of them, as vile as i find both men. However, I certainly think they both took advantage of her state at the time. Does that constitute rape...the jury thought so.

[moondog]

Misnomer, on 22 June 2016 - 02:17 PM, said:

Much appreciated.

I also respect your opinion on the judge. I have absolutely no knowledge whatsoever of judicial proceedings so I cannot reliably form an opinion one way or the other.

The only information I have to go on was provided by Sammy Spireite (thanks for that) which deconstructs events in court and the subsequent appeals, and concludes the antithesis of your own opinion.

https://www.crimelin...s-chedwyn-evans

My own opinion is that he is a contemptible egotistical scumbag (easily interpreted from his own words regarding events that night and other similar situations he was previously involved in) whom i have zero respect for. and, i do not understand why anyone would welcome such a massive c*** to cfc, regardless of whether or not he is guilty of rape.

In this particular case, based on what i have read, if i was a member of the jury, I would struggle to convict either of them, as vile as i find both men. However, I certainly think they both took advantage of her state at the time. Does that constitute rape...the jury thought so.

Re your concluding point, no the jury didn't McDonald was acquitted!

[Misnomer]

moondog, on 22 June 2016 - 02:26 PM, said:

Re your concluding point, no the jury didn't McDonald was acquitted!

Sorry, mate...i should have added that bit, cheers.

[dim view]

given that there was no perceivable change in circumstance between her liaison with McDonald and that of Evans.. [/quote]

except that McDonald was her date, and Evans was a stranger.

Bludddy big perceivable change in circumstances in my opinion. Did you say you'd read the case notes?

[Snowflake McBedwetter]

given that there was no perceivable change in circumstance between her liaison with McDonald and that of Evans..

except that McDonald was her date, and Evans was a stranger.

Bludddy big perceivable change in circumstances in my opinion. Did you say you'd read the case notes?
[/quote]

I did, yes.

You obviously didn't, or else you'd have known that McDonald bumped into her on the street, about 2 minutes before she insisted on jumping in a taxi with him.

Try reading them yourself before you pipe up again.

"The defence agreed that McDonald met the woman on the street and took her back to the hotel, where they were later joined by Evans. However, they claimed that both men had sex with the woman separately and with her consent. They argued she was not too drunk to consent, and suggested that her claim of memory loss may be a lie.

[sixmilliondollardan]

KevinArnottsGoldenBoot, on 22 June 2016 - 01:42 PM, said:

There are some links on here to the Mirror mentioning possible failings in his summing up and direction of the jury.

The possible failings are raised by Evans team, hardly a reliable source, especially considering they also conducted an appalling internet campaign against the girl involved which lead to her name being spread over the internet (including by Evans cousin).

[Snowflake McBedwetter]

sixmilliondollardan, on 22 June 2016 - 03:23 PM, said:

The possible failings are raised by Evans team, hardly a reliable source, especially considering they also conducted an appalling internet campaign against the girl involved which lead to her name being spread over the internet (including by Evans cousin).

If you're ever unlucky enough to be charged of a crime you didn't commit I presume you'll ask the prosecution to represent you!?

Truly staggering.

[dim view]

KevinArnottsGoldenBoot, on 22 June 2016 - 03:23 PM, said:

I did, yes.

You obviously didn't, or else you'd have known that McDonald bumped into her on the street, about 2 minutes before she insisted on jumping in a taxi with him.

Try reading them yourself before you pipe up again.

"The defence agreed that McDonald met the woman on the street and took her back to the hotel, where they were later joined by Evans. However, they claimed that both men had sex with the woman separately and with her consent. They argued she was not too drunk to consent, and suggested that her claim of memory loss may be a lie.

I have studied the case very carefully.

Answer this one.....

Out of one hundred women who might agree to drunken sex after a casual meeting, how many would be scared sh1tless if a stranger burst in on the proceedings? 'The vast majority' would be my estimate.

The jury don't have to give their reasons, but I'm suggesting what may be the major reason why Macdonald was acquitted and Evans wasn't.

[sixmilliondollardan]

KevinArnottsGoldenBoot, on 22 June 2016 - 03:27 PM, said:

If you're ever unlucky enough to be charged of a crime you didn't commit I presume you'll ask the prosecution to represent you!?

Truly staggering.

I was simply pointing out that the 'failings' of the judge you raised as fact were brought up by Evans team: not facts, their biased opinion. If you can find and supply the details of the judges summing up and dealings with the jury we can make our own minds up.

This post has been edited by sixmilliondollardan: 22 June 2016 - 03:32 PM

[Goku]

dim view, on 22 June 2016 - 03:30 PM, said:

Out of one hundred women who might agree to drunken sex after a casual meeting, how many would be scared sh1tless if a stranger burst in on the proceedings? 'The vast majority' would be my estimate.

They tend to run away, I can sadly and blue-ballingly confirm.

[Snowflake McBedwetter]

dim view, on 22 June 2016 - 03:30 PM, said:

I have studied the case very carefully.

Answer this one.....

Out of one hundred women who might agree to drunken sex after a casual meeting, how many would be scared sh1tless if a stranger burst in on the proceedings? 'The vast majority' would be my estimate.

The jury don't have to give their reasons, but I'm suggesting what may be the major reason why Macdonald was acquitted and Evans wasn't.

If you've studied it "very carefully" then why did you just say she was McDonalds date!?

Your opinion is not worth the few seconds you spent dreaming it up.

[moondog]

dim view, on 22 June 2016 - 03:30 PM, said:

I have studied the case very carefully.

Answer this one.....

Out of one hundred women who might agree to drunken sex after a casual meeting, how many would be scared sh1tless if a stranger burst in on the proceedings? 'The vast majority' would be my estimate.

The jury don't have to give their reasons, but I'm suggesting what may be the major reason why Macdonald was acquitted and Evans wasn't.

and how many out of a 100 would have no memory of it ?

[Snowflake McBedwetter]

sixmilliondollardan, on 22 June 2016 - 03:32 PM, said:

I was simply pointing out that the 'failings' of the judge you raised as fact were brought up by Evans team: not facts, their biased opinion. If you can find and supply the details of the judges summing up and dealings with the jury we can make our own minds up.

You'll find that that's how the system works. Two sides, each showing bias. Prosecution and defence. The prosecutions case has been quashed. It's really not that complicated.

If you're not capable of finding that information yourself, I'd advise steering clear on matters as important as this. Or just carry on and change your name to SixCentsDan.. or SixthSenseDan.

[Goku]

moondog, on 22 June 2016 - 03:39 PM, said:

and how many out of a 100 would have no memory of it ?

a fair amount, definitely.

[sixmilliondollardan]

KevinArnottsGoldenBoot, on 22 June 2016 - 03:42 PM, said:

You'll find that that's how the system works. Two sides, each showing bias. Prosecution and defence. The prosecutions case has been quashed. It's really not that complicated.

If you're not capable of finding that information yourself, I'd advise steering clear on matters as important as this. Or just carry on and change your name to SixCentsDan.. or SixthSenseDan.

This is arguing against something I haven't commented on, all I did was point out that your evidence was no such thing. YOU claimed the judge had incorrectly directed the jury and used a Mirror article as evidence. The article does not contain that evidence. The prosecution case was quashed but we don't know why as the information has not been released.

I take it from your refusal that you do not have access to the summing up and directions of the judge; I've had a quick google but can't find it from my cursory search.

[moondog]

Goku, on 22 June 2016 - 03:57 PM, said:

a fair amount, definitely.

At just 2.5 times over the drink drive limit ?

[Snowflake McBedwetter]

sixmilliondollardan, on 22 June 2016 - 03:58 PM, said:

This is arguing against something I haven't commented on, all I did was point out that your evidence was no such thing. YOU claimed the judge had incorrectly directed the jury and used a Mirror article as evidence. The article does not contain that evidence. The prosecution case was quashed but we don't know why as the information has not been released.

I take it from your refusal that you do not have access to the summing up and directions of the judge; I've had a quick google but can't find it from my cursory search.

My refusal is based solely on not being interested in doing legwork for someone who just makes up lies on a whim, then refuses to acknowledge it.

It really is as simple as that. Take from that whatever you choose.

"In my opinion, the judge should have told the jury that unless they could be sure that the woman in question hadn't consented, that they should find Evans not guilty, given that there was no perceivable change in circumstance between her liaison with McDonald and that of Evans. There are some links on here to the Mirror mentioning possible failings in his summing up and direction of the jury."

Note I said 'In my opinion' and pointed to 'possible failings'

You really ought to read, think and deliberate before you go around making stuff up. I have not claimed either evidence or fact. Which is why i won't waste any more time debating with you, it would be like a broken pencil.. pointless.

This post has been edited by KevinArnottsGoldenBoot: 22 June 2016 - 04:14 PM