Alph Posted September 30, 2014 Share Posted September 30, 2014 I'm getting worried. I've shagged some birds that were pissed. Also i've been very pissed too so have i been raped by a woman? Were they fit? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gritstone Ram Posted September 30, 2014 Share Posted September 30, 2014 Were they fit?at the time yeah. In the morning noooo!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alph Posted September 30, 2014 Share Posted September 30, 2014 at the time yeah. In the morning noooo!! You were taken advantage of. Lucky ******* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ambitious Posted September 30, 2014 Share Posted September 30, 2014 This 'case' has never sat right with me. To say it was 'rape' brings down the weight of the whole word. This type of thing happens all over the country at weekends and nothing more is made of it, yet this guy was put in prison. Maybe I don't know the whole story, but from what I read, it's not like he pinned her down, jumped her and forced her. 'too drunk to consent' sounds like a line a lad pulls out when he's banged a solid 4 with wobbly under arms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alph Posted October 1, 2014 Share Posted October 1, 2014 This 'case' has never sat right with me. To say it was 'rape' brings down the weight of the whole word. This type of thing happens all over the country at weekends and nothing more is made of it, yet this guy was put in prison. Maybe I don't know the whole story, but from what I read, it's not like he pinned her down, jumped her and forced her. 'too drunk to consent' sounds like a line a lad pulls out when he's banged a solid 4 with wobbly under arms. Good point. I only really just read the story properly. Is a bit dodgy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PistoldPete2 Posted October 1, 2014 Share Posted October 1, 2014 Good point. I only really just read the story properly. Is a bit dodgy. I think it is a far point that the argument "rape is rape" just doesnt stack up. This guy is branded a rapist because he has been convicted of rape. yet until you read the story , he is completley undistinguishable from someone who brutally rapes a complete stranger at knifepoint in the street. Giving these crimes the same name "rape" is misleading, as you have just admitted. Then there is the question of whether it could possibly have been a crime at all. http://www.chedevans.com/ Ok that's only one side of the story but quite how this guy was ever convicted I wil never know. He is still apealing against the conviction, but his case wont be heard til 2017 at the earliest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McRainy Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 the argument "rape is rape" just doesnt stack up. It does if you're the victim. What you're really saying is that women who get drunk can't expect to be protected by the law. By making yourself vulnerable, you are 'asking for it'. Fortunately, the law has progressed beyond this neanderthal thinking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PistoldPete2 Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 It does if you're the victim. What you're really saying is that women who get drunk can't expect to be protected by the law. By making yourself vulnerable, you are 'asking for it'. Fortunately, the law has progressed beyond this neanderthal thinking. No, it helps if you read stuff properly and dont put words into peoples mouths. "Rape is rape" argument doesnt stack up for me , with other crimes there are different degrees and different names for the crimes eg murder and manslaughter. The family of Pistorious girlfriend will be very upset that his conviction was only for manslaughter, families of other victims may with varying levels of justification, feel unhappy about only a manslaughter conviction. But that doesnt mean it's wrong to have separate crimes which depend on the circumstances. The problem with a single name "rape" applied to all sex acts with varying levels of dissent or non-consent is that there are people who are branded as rapists who are then tarred with the same brush as violent criminals. Alpha at first reacted with repulsion at the prospect of a "rapist" being re-employed, then seems to backtrack a lot when he saw the details of the story. That is the problem that convicted "rapists" will face for the rest of their lives, people will react with revulsion without knowing the full story . As for your statement " what you're really saying is that women who get drunk cant expect to be protected by the law", well I have never said that and I dont think its true. But it does weaken the severity of any crime that may be committed if the other party did not actively dissent; how can the other party know he was committing a crime? It makes it less wilfully a crime, just like the murder / manslaughter divide . And it must raise questions as to whether a crime has been committed at all ; who hasnt had sex when drunk? There are real problems with the Evans case, Macdonald was acquited but Evans was not. Was she too drunk to consent to Evans but not too drunk to consent to Macdonald? Again it doesnt stack up. There's no neandertal thinking here, you have given a cliched version of the debate and then answered your own version of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ladyram Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 If he wins his appeal whenever it is, then good luck to him. It wouldn't be the first time a conviction has been overturned. Until then, the law court says he's guilty of rape. So does that not make him a convicted rapist? Just like being convicted of peadophillia makes you a peadophile? Whatever your opinion is, that's what the law states. You can't really argue with that until that verdict is overturned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Day Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 If he wins his appeal whenever it is, then good luck to him. It wouldn't be the first time a conviction has been overturned. Until then, the law court says he's guilty of rape. So does that not make him a convicted rapist? Just like being convicted of peadophillia makes you a peadophile? Whatever your opinion is, that's what the law states. You can't really argue with that until that verdict is overturned. Guess the same can be said about him playing football again, whatever your opinion there is no law that states he isn't allowed to play again. If any club wants to sign him, fair play to him. Odd one if Nigel signs him tho, being all about the team spirit and signing players that fit well in the dressing room, can't see a convicted rapist going down too well with all the players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyinLiverpool Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 erm....because he's a decent player? A managers job is to win games...not to be a judge or jury on what that player does outside of the football club. I don't know the terms of Clough's contract but I would be very surprised if his job description contained only the phrase 'win games'. Anybody who does any sort of management job will tell you that they have to 'judge' on a daily basis what is and what is not good for the company. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ladyram Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 If his verdict is overturned by the courts, then play again by all means. But if not, then you're right Daveo, I don't think it would sit well with the players - but if Nigel was thinking about signing him, then he's going to have to think long and hard about his own morals and principles first. This is a tricky one, no wonder Sheff U are worried. They have a choice to make now, it might have made more sense to them as a club to sack him. As it is, there is a bit of unrest now, people are getting nervous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcsilks Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 I don't know the terms of Clough's contract but I would be very surprised if his job description contained only the phrase 'win games'. Anybody who does any sort of management job will tell you that they have to 'judge' on a daily basis what is and what is not good for the company. Am not sure you can apply the same management philosophy to a football manager. Am pretty sure any football manager wouldn't give two hoots if he had two child molesters, three rapists and half a dozen murderers in his team providing they got a win. Clubs care less and less about their managers so why should those managers care about the mistakes their playing staff have made, and paid for incidentally, years ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyinLiverpool Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 No, it helps if you read stuff properly and dont put words into peoples mouths. "Rape is rape" argument doesnt stack up for me , with other crimes there are different degrees and different names for the crimes eg murder and manslaughter. The family of Pistorious girlfriend will be very upset that his conviction was only for manslaughter, families of other victims may with varying levels of justification, feel unhappy about only a manslaughter conviction. But that doesnt mean it's wrong to have separate crimes which depend on the circumstances. The problem with a single name "rape" applied to all sex acts with varying levels of dissent or non-consent is that there are people who are branded as rapists who are then tarred with the same brush as violent criminals. Alpha at first reacted with repulsion at the prospect of a "rapist" being re-employed, then seems to backtrack a lot when he saw the details of the story. That is the problem that convicted "rapists" will face for the rest of their lives, people will react with revulsion without knowing the full story . As for your statement " what you're really saying is that women who get drunk cant expect to be protected by the law", well I have never said that and I dont think its true. But it does weaken the severity of any crime that may be committed if the other party did not actively dissent; how can the other party know he was committing a crime? It makes it less wilfully a crime, just like the murder / manslaughter divide . And it must raise questions as to whether a crime has been committed at all ; who hasnt had sex when drunk? There are real problems with the Evans case, Macdonald was acquited but Evans was not. Was she too drunk to consent to Evans but not too drunk to consent to Macdonald? Again it doesnt stack up. There's no neandertal thinking here, you have given a cliched version of the debate and then answered your own version of it. You need to check the definition of rape in English law. The Sexual Offences Act 2003 defines it thus: Rape (1)A person (A) commits an offence if Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyinLiverpool Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 Am not sure you can apply the same management philosophy to a football manager. Am pretty sure any football manager wouldn't give two hoots if he had two child molesters, three rapists and half a dozen murderers in his team providing they got a win. Clubs care less and less about their managers so why should those managers care about the mistakes their playing staff have made, and paid for incidentally, years ago. I think that's quite possibly the biggest pile of horse manure you have ever written on this forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ladyram Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 Not sure what to say to that really mc. I wouldn't pay to watch murderers, rapists and perverts I can tell you that for nowt. Derby County or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcsilks Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 I think that's quite possibly the biggest pile of horse manure you have ever written on this forum. No, I doubt that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anon Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 With regards to the "rape is rape" debate, whilst the severity of the crime doesn't really make a difference to the fact that he'll be referred to as a rapist, it does make a big difference with regards to Sheffield United or any other football club choosing to give him a contract. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcsilks Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 Not sure what to say to that really mc. I wouldn't pay to watch murderers, rapists and perverts I can tell you that for nowt. Derby County or not. While I respect your point of view, surely you do your crime, serve your time and then start again do you not? I know people who have served time for some truly horrendous crimes many years back and I am able to look past that and give them a second chance. This player deserves another chance and I hope Clough entertains that notion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ladyram Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 There's so much more to think about than just scoring goals here though, isn't there? They have fans, first and fore most, without them they don't even have a club. Then investors, shareholders, sponsors, the local economy. I wonder how many of them are opposed to it? Then there's the work the club and team does in the community, charity events, visits to see poorly kids in hospital. Now I'm not saying he shouldn't do all these things if he's allowed back - but what could this do to the clubs image because he won't get a CRB check so will have to be supervised and this will carry a stigma. That's what SU will be weighing up. Is it the best thing for them? Very tricky. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.