|
Post by Stafford-Stokie on Oct 23, 2014 15:13:02 GMT
I also believe he did nothing wrong other than cheat on his Mrs. Convicted because some pissed up bint can't remember saying yes??? Load of bollox. I only hope he gets his justice. Stafford, you have a right to express your opinion so I'll express mine. I think your ramblings on this topic are pure conjecture, thoughtless and insensitive. Just my opinion of course. Oh well.
|
|
|
Post by stokester1989 on Oct 23, 2014 15:19:00 GMT
i think hes innocent and actually feel for him. any girl who goes back to a hotel with a man shes met on anight out must know the score and what his intentions are. i think he was an easy target for some slag who wants to earn a quick quid. I give up sometime. You seem to be doing a lot of thinking without much end product. elaborate?
|
|
|
Post by metalhead on Oct 23, 2014 15:40:51 GMT
Rape is a very emotive subject, Mick so it's hardly surprising that some posts will not be devoid of emotional content. It's not always possible to post strictly academic comments written in the correct linguistic and semantic way. Human beings don't always operate like that. It's not our 'modus operandi' mate. i haven't asked anyone too mate....i've simply said that if someone has already said that they have read all the facts that are out there and come to a conclusion based on that then it isn't really fair for others to slag them off if their differing opinion is merely based on the tabloids (i.e. far less info) and that for people to try to infer that anyone who questions the verdict is somehow therefore a rape apologist or they just don't care about the issue of violence towards women, is disgraceful behaviour and the worst kind of trolling you can get! i'd say both are fairly reasonable things for humans to expect in any situation from other reasonable, grown adults whether it's an emotive subject or not....not really a lot to ask is it? The downright shameful truth, is that the term rape apologist wasn't made up in the media, it originates from 'radical feminism' which is a pretty extreme form of feminism. These are the kind of people who believe that it's physically impossible for a woman to sexually assault a man, that domestic violence where the aggressor is the female is justified because of historical male supremacy and seriously... don't get them started about sexual dimorphism because apparently that's merely a social construct and has absolutely no science behind it whatsoever. I've actually been reading one particular radfem (as she refers) on Twitter called Jean Hatchet. She established the refuse Ched Evans back to football petition which has over 150,000 signatures. She has also manipulated the media like an absolute champion. I would love to take some lessons off her, if I wasn't scared about the fact she would happily see males wiped from the planet (according to her blog which she's subsequently removed). Most her Tweets are anti-male vitriol. When female feminists have called her up on certain things, she's replied with unpleasant hostility and questioned their loyalty to the feminist cause. When male feminists (guys who identify with feminism if you get me?) have called her up on certain things, she's replied with even worse comments including telling one guy to "Pack up your shit. Get that shit out of feminism, you're a dude!". Nice. It was here that she started using the term 'rape apologist' and this has taken off in feminist movements although I doubt she came up with it. I wonder if she's going to tell all the males who have signed her petition to get their shit out... I myself decided to Tweet her a fairly simple question and within minutes I was returned some of the most foul mouthed hostility I've probably ever received on Twitter... and I've had it out with plenty of Arsenal fans. It was pretty unpleasant. After saying "thank you very much, have a nice day", as in, fuck off I don't want to talk to you anymore, she continued by calling me a 'troll', a 'rape apologist' and forwarding my name to some other militant feminists who proceeded to send me some pretty abusive comments up until yesterday when it seemed to have quietened down. For what it's worth, my original message was sent last Thursday. Going through her blog (including posts she's now removed, thank fuck for Internet caching), it's filled with the most bitter anti-male abuse you will read probably on the Internet. She's worse than Criado-Perez, although they seem to get on very well. She talks about males as if because of our ancestors and historical inequalities, we somehow owe her something. I owe her fuck all. I believe in equality, I despise males who assault women and I believe in women's rights. Like I said above, she's played the media like an absolute champion. After claiming she had turned down numerous interviews with radio stations because she's not doing it for the publicity and due to fears for her safety (the only interview request I actually found was from an unofficial web radio station in Sheffield who offered to distort her voice) she jumped at the opportunity for an interview with Sky News on TV... however what you realize is Sky News weren't really that interested in her petition at all and she wasn't interested in talking about it. The woman had claimed on Twitter that she had received death threats, rape threats and just general nastiness. When interviewed on Sky, she dedicated about 20-30 seconds to the Ched Evans thing and dedicated a good 2 and half minutes to saying how males in this country were going on and sending her the most vile abuse you can imagine and trolling her (just another Sky News trolling story). She doesn't care about Ched Evans and she cares even less about the victim. This is about her agenda and promoting it. Not content, I did some GrepTweet work and found that of the most serious accusations she made on Sky News, only ONE appears to be true. The rest have either disappeared or didn't happen. Because she's the woman who made the petition and a feminist and therefore holier than thou, you realize that the media don't question her own remarks and rather take them as gospel. She's a good person, after all, she made that petition, so she must be telling the truth. Since the Sky News report, there's been another story in the mainstream media where she claims that she wakes up to Twitter everyday to find up to 25 death/rape threats. Prior to this story, I monitored tweets with the tag @jeanhatchet overnight for a few days and read them every morning as she had already made this claim once on her Twitter. Either this is a lie, or my software isn't working. The majority of tweets with her name in were overwhelmingly positive or legitimate questions. On the 4 days I monitored, she received hundreds of positive comments, perhaps 30-40 legitimate questions that she either avoided or replied with hostility, about 10 petty comments e.g. "fuckkkk off stop targeting sufc" etc etc and just one threat. Since the story, dozens of new accounts sprouted up with egg photos (e.g. you're new) sending her pretty unpleasant threats... why am I suspicious that these are simply feminists effectively making a smokescreen? Finally, she's done what every great media champion does. She's publicly quit Twitter. "I can't stay on Twitter, I'm in fear of my safety". The Internet went crazy. She's been hounded off Twitter by horrible Ched Evans supporters. I took a bet with someone, that in less than 30 days, she would return (once 30 days are up your tweets and followers are gone forever)... in fact, it took less than one. She's already back, however her Twitter is private. That means in a few weeks she'll be back, but for now she's been 'hounded off Twitter in fear of her safety' Do you know what I think? Utter bollocks! She's playing it like a champ. She's a liar, a fraud and really, all she's proven to me, is that she's not a feminist at all, she's a female supremacist. She's everything she hates, inverted.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 23, 2014 15:46:59 GMT
I give up sometime. You seem to be doing a lot of thinking without much end product. elaborate? the man she went back to the hotel room with after a night out wasn't Ched Evans though...it was Max Clayton who was acquitted of all charges. she had no idea that Evans would be "joining them" until he came into the room (and that's something that Evans and Clayton themselves testified to) so...even if we go with the logic of "She happily went back to the hotel room so must have known she was going to get laid" (which wouldn't stand up in a court of law thankfully!) it still wouldn't help Evan's case in any way as it wasn't him that she "knew the intentions" of or "Knew the score" with. pretty sure that even if she "knew the score" what she was going back to the room for with Clayton was, it doesn't equate to her realising that his mate would later turn up and jump in there as part of a free for all does it?
|
|
|
Post by wizzardofdribble on Oct 23, 2014 17:54:28 GMT
Fair comment Mick, wouldn't disagree with any of that. actually i just re-read it and i disagree with it.....why i'd expect most on here to be "Reasonable, grown up adults" god only knows (and i'm including myself in that) Fuck me Mick, only you could disagree with yourself ;-)
|
|
|
Post by stokecity4eva on Oct 23, 2014 18:38:04 GMT
the man she went back to the hotel room with after a night out wasn't Ched Evans though...it was Max Clayton who was acquitted of all charges. she had no idea that Evans would be "joining them" until he came into the room (and that's something that Evans and Clayton themselves testified to) so...even if we go with the logic of "She happily went back to the hotel room so must have known she was going to get laid" (which wouldn't stand up in a court of law thankfully!) it still wouldn't help Evan's case in any way as it wasn't him that she "knew the intentions" of or "Knew the score" with. pretty sure that even if she "knew the score" what she was going back to the room for with Clayton was, it doesn't equate to her realising that his mate would later turn up and jump in there as part of a free for all does it? It wasn't Max Clayton(ex Crewe player), it was Clayton McDonald(ex vale player)who was found not guilty
|
|
|
Post by Stafford-Stokie on Oct 23, 2014 18:43:51 GMT
the man she went back to the hotel room with after a night out wasn't Ched Evans though...it was Max Clayton who was acquitted of all charges. she had no idea that Evans would be "joining them" until he came into the room (and that's something that Evans and Clayton themselves testified to) so...even if we go with the logic of "She happily went back to the hotel room so must have known she was going to get laid" (which wouldn't stand up in a court of law thankfully!) it still wouldn't help Evan's case in any way as it wasn't him that she "knew the intentions" of or "Knew the score" with. pretty sure that even if she "knew the score" what she was going back to the room for with Clayton was, it doesn't equate to her realising that his mate would later turn up and jump in there as part of a free for all does it? So she was sober enough to say yes to Clayton but not Evens? How the hell does that work?
|
|
|
Post by stokie77 on Oct 23, 2014 18:49:14 GMT
It was not max clayton he was not even there so before you speculate it's clayton McDonald.
|
|
|
Post by basingstokie on Oct 23, 2014 18:52:09 GMT
the man she went back to the hotel room with after a night out wasn't Ched Evans though...it was Max Clayton who was acquitted of all charges. she had no idea that Evans would be "joining them" until he came into the room (and that's something that Evans and Clayton themselves testified to) so...even if we go with the logic of "She happily went back to the hotel room so must have known she was going to get laid" (which wouldn't stand up in a court of law thankfully!) it still wouldn't help Evan's case in any way as it wasn't him that she "knew the intentions" of or "Knew the score" with. pretty sure that even if she "knew the score" what she was going back to the room for with Clayton was, it doesn't equate to her realising that his mate would later turn up and jump in there as part of a free for all does it? So she was sober enough to say yes to Clayton but not Evens? How the hell does that work? Very relevant point. Even if she wanted to shag the mate, if she was virtually comatose with alcohol then surely the implied consent of her going back to his room is negated by her allegedly unconscious state in the room, which is how Ched raped her.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 23, 2014 20:44:37 GMT
the man she went back to the hotel room with after a night out wasn't Ched Evans though...it was Max Clayton who was acquitted of all charges. she had no idea that Evans would be "joining them" until he came into the room (and that's something that Evans and Clayton themselves testified to) so...even if we go with the logic of "She happily went back to the hotel room so must have known she was going to get laid" (which wouldn't stand up in a court of law thankfully!) it still wouldn't help Evan's case in any way as it wasn't him that she "knew the intentions" of or "Knew the score" with. pretty sure that even if she "knew the score" what she was going back to the room for with Clayton was, it doesn't equate to her realising that his mate would later turn up and jump in there as part of a free for all does it? It wasn't Max Clayton(ex Crewe player), it was Clayton McDonald(ex vale player)who was found not guilty sorry you're 100% right!!! Apologies...not the kinda thread to misname people on
|
|
|
Post by borat on Oct 23, 2014 20:53:57 GMT
I'm not sure why but I think he's innocent, I think he fucked a pissed up bird (which I've done many times) and he's been unfortunate, I might visit chedevans.com see more about the case.....
|
|
|
Post by spitthedog on Oct 23, 2014 23:17:42 GMT
I'm not sure why but I think he's innocent, I think he fucked a pissed up bird (which I've done many times) and he's been unfortunate, I might visit chedevans.com see more about the case..... thats like consulting Himmler for an objective view on Jews
|
|
|
Post by spitthedog on Oct 23, 2014 23:23:38 GMT
So she was sober enough to say yes to Clayton but not Evens? How the hell does that work? Very relevant point. Even if she wanted to shag the mate, if she was virtually comatose with alcohol then surely the implied consent of her going back to his room is negated by her allegedly unconscious state in the room, which is how Ched raped her. Ched!...........mates now eh?
|
|
|
Post by ukcstokie on Oct 23, 2014 23:47:25 GMT
I'm not sure why but I think he's innocent, I think he fucked a pissed up bird (which I've done many times) and he's been unfortunate, I might visit chedevans.com see more about the case..... thats like consulting Himmler for an objective view on Jews That like listening to the defence before forming a judgement.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 24, 2014 9:04:07 GMT
I'm not sure why but I think he's innocent, I think he fucked a pissed up bird (which I've done many times) and he's been unfortunate, I might visit chedevans.com see more about the case..... thats like consulting Himmler for an objective view on Jews it's not though because all that site has on it is details of the facts of the defence and what happened in court which as i have said are a matter of public record anyway and tally up with what it is on the ched evans site. the ched evans site would not legally be allowed to put forward things that weren't fact or hadn't been openly used in court anyway. the ONLY reason that site is being looked into by the police is because of how they got hold of the CCTV footage (which was used in court), they have no issues with the content of the site at all, if there was any pure speculation or lies it would be shut down, simple as that.
|
|