|
Post by capto on Jan 12, 2015 14:33:52 GMT
Could I throw summit into the fire? CE can't get a club, he's a registered sex offender etc. If ,& I know its still an if, Prince what's his name is found guilty of underage sex, will he lose his job title etc? Hope so. Hope there's not one rule for one & one rule for another?
|
|
|
Post by manicstreetpotter on Jan 12, 2015 15:00:45 GMT
Could I throw summit into the fire? CE can't get a club, he's a registered sex offender etc. If ,& I know its still an if, Prince what's his name is found guilty of underage sex, will he lose his job title etc? Hope so. Hope there's not one rule for one & one rule for another? Well one's and employee and the one is in a hereditary position so hard to tell. I'd hope the same would apply though. Would make for a brilliant year.
|
|
|
Post by manicstreetpotter on Jan 12, 2015 15:01:52 GMT
Do you think maybe they didn't convict McDonald because they were together when they went back to the hotel so harder to prove beyond reasonable doubt that it was not consensual? Where as Evans then turns up, has sex with her and then decides it's best to leave via a fire escape. Not so hard to distinguish between one and the other is it? Yep, I'm with the jury and judges on this one but don't let you armchair legal experts let that get in your way I agree. As none of us were on the jury, it's impossible to say, but I assume that the brief courtship (if it can be called that) which McDonald had with the woman just about cast enough doubt in the jury's mind for it to return a not guilty verdict. That Evans received a text from McDonald, turned up, had sex with her and left via a fire escape doesn't leave much room for doubt as the law stands if the woman says she can't remember what happened and the judge decides she's drunk. I struggle to see whats so difficult to understand about that? The chances of his conviction being overturned are practically nil. Seeing how he was denied the right to appeal, I don't now see how they can overturn his conviction unless theres some dramatic new piece of evidence that hasn't been released. Should he fail to get his conviction overturned then I believe he should have no future in the game. Totally agree. Such a shame about your Ukip allegiance though
|
|
|
Post by boothenboy75 on Jan 12, 2015 16:07:08 GMT
I agree. As none of us were on the jury, it's impossible to say, but I assume that the brief courtship (if it can be called that) which McDonald had with the woman just about cast enough doubt in the jury's mind for it to return a not guilty verdict. That Evans received a text from McDonald, turned up, had sex with her and left via a fire escape doesn't leave much room for doubt as the law stands if the woman says she can't remember what happened and the judge decides she's drunk. I struggle to see whats so difficult to understand about that? The chances of his conviction being overturned are practically nil. Seeing how he was denied the right to appeal, I don't now see how they can overturn his conviction unless theres some dramatic new piece of evidence that hasn't been released. Should he fail to get his conviction overturned then I believe he should have no future in the game. Totally agree. Such a shame about your Ukip allegiance though I'm sure there'll be a general elesction thread or 2 where I can try to make you see the light.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 12, 2015 17:26:07 GMT
aaah FFS i thought we'd seen the last of this thread when they anchored it on the other board
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 12, 2015 17:28:21 GMT
Could I throw summit into the fire? CE can't get a club, he's a registered sex offender etc. If ,& I know its still an if, Prince what's his name is found guilty of underage sex, will he lose his job title etc? Hope so. Hope there's not one rule for one & one rule for another? he hasn't actually been charged with anything has he? simply named in the files for someone elses case. and the "underage" part is only by US law (where the other person's trial is being held). she was 17 when these alleged incidents took place so would be legal in a UK court and no-one in the US is even considering pressing charges against him anyway (where it would have been illegal). at present Prince Andrew isn't in any legal trouble whatsoever. PR trouble yes but not legal.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 12, 2015 17:34:52 GMT
Could I throw summit into the fire? CE can't get a club, he's a registered sex offender etc. If ,& I know its still an if, Prince what's his name is found guilty of underage sex, will he lose his job title etc? Hope so. Hope there's not one rule for one & one rule for another? he hasn't actually been charged with anything has he? simply named in the files for someone elses case. and the "underage" part is only by US law (where the other person's trial is being held). she was 17 when these alleged incidents took place so would be legal in a UK court and no-one in the US is even considering pressing charges against him anyway (where it would have been illegal). at present Prince Andrew isn't in any legal trouble whatsoever. PR trouble yes but not legal. He's just carrying on the age old royal tradition of shagging inappropriate men/women GD
|
|
|
Post by Gods on Jan 12, 2015 17:35:34 GMT
aaah FFS i thought we'd seen the last of this thread when they anchored it on the other board He said before throwing himself firmly back in the fray
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 12, 2015 17:36:35 GMT
aaah FFS i thought we'd seen the last of this thread when they anchored it on the other board He said before throwing himself firmly back in the fray i admitted that in that very post myself you selective quoter Gods!!! you little tinker you
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 12, 2015 17:36:54 GMT
he hasn't actually been charged with anything has he? simply named in the files for someone elses case. and the "underage" part is only by US law (where the other person's trial is being held). she was 17 when these alleged incidents took place so would be legal in a UK court and no-one in the US is even considering pressing charges against him anyway (where it would have been illegal). at present Prince Andrew isn't in any legal trouble whatsoever. PR trouble yes but not legal. He's just carrying on the age old royal tradition of shagging inappropriate men/women GD like Fergie?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 12, 2015 17:40:56 GMT
He's just carrying on the age old royal tradition of shagging inappropriate men/women GD like Fergie? I bet she went like a barn door in a hurricane GD
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 13, 2015 4:02:54 GMT
I agree, read about the role of the CCRC here www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/about/criminal-cases-review/policies-and-procedures/ccrc-q-and-a.pdfScroll down to the paragraph title "What is new evidence and legal arguement ?" And it states that the CCRC can only consider overturning a conviction based on new evidence that has cropped up after the trial. They cannot review evidence that was heard by the judge and jury at the trial even if the defendant thinks the jury made the wrong decision. Is the fact that she tried it with someone else before new evidence as this wasn't allowed to be submitted in the original trial? It is just ludicrous that this was not allowed to be disclosed in the original trial, surely it is almost pivotal in his defence that she may have set up a honey trap, also not disclosed was her tweets saying " Kerching....I'm in the money" or summat like that...
|
|
|
Post by manicstreetpotter on Jan 13, 2015 11:58:40 GMT
Totally agree. Such a shame about your Ukip allegiance though I'm sure there'll be a general elesction thread or 2 where I can try to make you see the light. Highly doubt that. I have no desire to go back to the 1950's thanks.
|
|
|
Post by manicstreetpotter on Jan 13, 2015 12:03:41 GMT
Is the fact that she tried it with someone else before new evidence as this wasn't allowed to be submitted in the original trial? It is just ludicrous that this was not allowed to be disclosed in the original trial, surely it is almost pivotal in his defence that she may have set up a honey trap, also not disclosed was her tweets saying " Kerching....I'm in the money" or summat like that... Do you know the reason that this was not allowed to be submitted in the original trial? If so, then you'll already have your answer.
|
|
|
Post by boothenboy75 on Jan 13, 2015 12:05:55 GMT
|
|
|
Post by manicstreetpotter on Jan 13, 2015 12:12:05 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 15, 2015 9:43:24 GMT
It is just ludicrous that this was not allowed to be disclosed in the original trial, surely it is almost pivotal in his defence that she may have set up a honey trap, also not disclosed was her tweets saying " Kerching....I'm in the money" or summat like that... Do you know the reason that this was not allowed to be submitted in the original trial? If so, then you'll already have your answer. Summat about "full disclosure". I don't pretend to know the law inside out, but certainly prosecutors can not bring unrelated events to the floor, so I presume the defence can't either. Only the Judge is privy to such matters and uses them when sentencing.
|
|
|
Post by manicstreetpotter on Jan 16, 2015 14:46:17 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 16, 2015 14:53:56 GMT
fair enough actually..i hope they will also be doing the same about the videos on youtube where they show all of the stills from that video (with just her face obscured as well) otherwise you'll have people on heresaying how they are simply persecuting that particular website
|
|
|
Post by lawrieleslie on Jan 28, 2015 16:37:44 GMT
Apparently his lawyer has submitted "new evidence" to the CCRC and he is confident that he will have his conviction overturned. Can't say what this new evidence is though. Find it strange that CCRC could order a re-trial based on new evidence. What happens if a re-trial finds him guilty again?
|
|
|
Post by ukcstokie on Jan 29, 2015 1:16:54 GMT
|
|
|
Post by basingstokie on Jan 29, 2015 7:56:10 GMT
So there becomes a presumption of guilt rather than innocence? As ukc says, how do you prove consent? & as Ched case shows, you not only have to prove consent but that she (or he) was capable of giving consent, not just that they gave it but that they weren't too hammered to give informed consent & what is date rape anyway?
|
|
|
Post by ukcstokie on Jan 29, 2015 9:59:32 GMT
So there becomes a presumption of guilt rather than innocence? As ukc says, how do you prove consent? & as Ched case shows, you not only have to prove consent but that she (or he) was capable of giving consent, not just that they gave it but that they weren't too hammered to give informed consent & what is date rape anyway? So you'd need a sobriety test - which would need to be witnessed independently. Then a proof of consent (signed declaration, independent witness). Kinda takes the romance/passion out of it doesn't it?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2015 11:51:43 GMT
only a matter of time until we start getting cold calls.....
"According to our records, you were involved in a rape in the last 3 years. due to a new governmental scheme where men are now presumed guilty until proved innocent, you may be entitled to compensation. press 1 to be connected to an operator who will tell you how to completely screw someone's life up because you changed your mind the morning after"
|
|
|
Post by basingstokie on Jan 29, 2015 12:31:38 GMT
only a matter of time until we start getting cold calls..... "According to our records, you were involved in a rape in the last 3 years. due to a new governmental scheme where men are now presumed guilty until proved innocent, you may be entitled to compensation. press 1 to be connected to an operator who will tell you how to completely screw someone's life up because you changed your mind the morning after" Scarily, it's even easier than that; Crimes don't become 'invalid' after 3 years, Soo the question is; At any point in your life have you had sex while a little bit tipsy? God help anyone whose got a vengeful ex our there
|
|
|
Post by santy on Jan 29, 2015 15:36:07 GMT
But what about when the shoe is on the other foot?
Pretty sure what is one of my fondest memories of a trip to Sweden, has just been reclassified as rape and I was the victim because I was the one who'd had a few drinks.
|
|
|
Post by Gods on Jan 29, 2015 15:45:56 GMT
So there becomes a presumption of guilt rather than innocence? As ukc says, how do you prove consent? & as Ched case shows, you not only have to prove consent but that she (or he) was capable of giving consent, not just that they gave it but that they weren't too hammered to give informed consent & what is date rape anyway? So you'd need a sobriety test - which would need to be witnessed independently. Then a proof of consent (signed declaration, independent witness). Kinda takes the romance/passion out of it doesn't it? I'm afraid I must first ask you to blow in to this bag before you can blow on my cock my dear. I have no wish to finish up like that poor old Ched fella who got hung out to dry
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2015 15:47:05 GMT
But what about when the shoe is on the other foot? Pretty sure what is one of my fondest memories of a trip to Sweden, has just been reclassified as rape and I was the victim because I was the one who'd had a few drinks. a woman can't rape a man under UK law as the legal definition states that the penetration is by a penis. the only way a woman can be convicted of rape currently is if she acts as an accomplice to a man who has raped someone. the worst she could face for the kind of example you detail above is sexual assualt.
|
|
|
Post by santy on Jan 29, 2015 15:55:35 GMT
Imagine the uproar it would cause if there were crimes men could not be charged with, by virtue of being a man.
|
|
|
Post by ukcstokie on Jan 29, 2015 15:58:45 GMT
But what about when the shoe is on the other foot? Pretty sure what is one of my fondest memories of a trip to Sweden, has just been reclassified as rape and I was the victim because I was the one who'd had a few drinks. ...and if you're both drunk but she takes the lead - then cries rape - as she was too drunk to consent. What happens then? Just to add: www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31027549With these two announcements today it does feel that we've turn a corner: men are guilty unless you can prove innocence. Women can be treated more leniently because they may have suffered in their lives. Are men becoming a sub-class that doesn't deserve fair treatment?
|
|