Ched Evans womans name?

[Del Boy]

Anyone help?

[steve robinson]

Del Boy wrote:

> Anyone help?

Yes i could but i am not going too.

[sutartsorric]

On Apr 24, 1:06 pm, "steve robinson" <st...@colevalleyinteriors.co.uk>
wrote:

> Del Boy wrote:
> > Anyone help?
>
> Yes i could but i am not going too.

Is it short for Chedwyn Ap Rapist?

[Mel Rowing]

On Apr 24, 12:56 pm, Del Boy <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
> Anyone help?

It would be a contempt of court if they did!

[sutartsorric]

Why would anyone want to know, unless they were of a rather braindead
disposition?

Anyone who 'befriends' a woman so drunk that she falls over in a kebab
shop, and then ends up having sex with them a short while later,
deserves every punishment they get.

In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if certain animal tendencies don't
deliberately loiter around town centre take-aways most weekends
looking for women who are too drunk to function properly.

[Fredxx]

On 24/04/2012 13:52, sutartsorric wrote:
> On Apr 24, 12:59 pm, Mel Rowing<mel.row...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> On Apr 24, 12:56 pm, Del Boy<m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Anyone help?
>>
>> It would be a contempt of court if they did!
>
> Why would anyone want to know, unless they were of a rather braindead
> disposition?
>
> Anyone who 'befriends' a woman so drunk that she falls over in a kebab
> shop, and then ends up having sex with them a short while later,
> deserves every punishment they get.
>

Do you not think there is some culpability on her part?

The next time a drunk drives into a loved one and claims not to be
culpable because he was so inebriated he didn't know what he was doing,
I suggest you don't complain.

[Mango]

"Del Boy" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:4f9694e4$0$24383$7120d902@karibu...
> Anyone help?
>

Sky News can help. Since they accidentally showed her name during last
night's broadcast I would assume that the information is now considered to
be in the public domain:

http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/215/laurencrawford.jpg/

People are saying she has made 3 other rape allegations in the past but I
haven't seen anyone show any proof of that.

[The Todal]

Have you ever got drunk?

If you went to the pub with your mates, drank about 10 pints and then
staggered out of the pub to make your way home, and then met some thugs
who pulled your trousers down and raped you up the arse, would we hear
you saying "okay, fair enough, it was partly my fault"?

[Frank]

On 24/04/2012 12:56, Del Boy wrote:
> Anyone help?
>

http://afterwatt.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/ched-evans-and-lauren-crawford.html

Seems she makes a habit of it

[sutartsorric]

I think you have this the wrong way round.

It wasn't the blind drunk woman who committed an offence in this case.

Whereas the drunk driving analogy of yours would need it to be.

For your version to work, it would need to be that the driver ran into
a drunk loved one who collapsed into the road in front of the car. In
that case, the drunk person would then have to suggest the driver took
advantage of the situation to deliberately run over her.

Not quite the same, I think you will agree?

[The Todal]

On 24/4/12 14:40, Frank wrote:
> On 24/04/2012 12:56, Del Boy wrote:
>> Anyone help?
>>
>

> http://xxxx

>
> Seems she makes a habit of it
>

Naming her is contempt of court, and if you really want to join the
queue to be prosecuted and gaoled, that's up to you.

No, it doesn't seem she makes a habit of it. It seems that lots of
dullard fuckwits, the sort who use words like "feminazis", believe that
she makes a habit of it, but that's not the same thing.

[Richard McKenzie]

I receieved an email from a Rape Charity and i asked their opinion on
keeping the anonimity of the accused until/unless they are found
guilty "We do not support anonymity for defendants in rape cases as
this is likely to have a negative impact on the justice system."

I abhor rape but i have read incidents where accused (where the police
later found there was not enough evidence of the accused dropped the
allegation) have committed suicide.

Now i appreciate that you should not have sex with women who are so
intoxicated with drink that they are falling over but where is the
line. Are we to have to introduce a breathalyser kit to establish
consent.

If we are to believe that men are predatory rapist as most of these
charities convey then maybe its a good idea for women not to become a
victim.

[Big Les Wade]

The Todal <deadm...@beeb.net> posted

>On 24/4/12 14:16, Fredxx wrote:
>
>If you went to the pub with your mates, drank about 10 pints and then
>staggered out of the pub to make your way home,

That's not what happened. She went back to their hotel room with them.
There is no evidence that they forced her to.

>and then met some thugs who pulled your trousers down and raped you up
>the arse,

We do not know whether that resembles what happened to the woman. She
may have given consent, or at least not demurred.

>would we hear you saying "okay, fair enough, it was partly my fault"?

In the circumstances of the current case (not those you have just
invented), yes.

Try imagining it was your own wife. You hear evidence in court that she
got pissed, went to a hotel room with some fit young footballers, and
had sex with one or more of them, although she doesn't remember whether
she consented or not. Are you seriously saying that in future you will
trust her just as much as you have always done?

--
Les

[Richard McKenzie]

> you saying "okay, fair enough, it was partly my fault"?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Why do you lock your door at night ?

[sutartsorric]

On Apr 24, 3:09 pm, Richard McKenzie

<richardmckenzi...@googlemail.com> wrote:


>
> Why do you lock your door at night ?

It keeps the badgers and neighbours' cats out of my utility room and
kitchen.

[The Todal]

On 24/4/12 15:22, Big Les Wade wrote:
> The Todal <deadm...@beeb.net> posted
>> On 24/4/12 14:16, Fredxx wrote:
>>
>> If you went to the pub with your mates, drank about 10 pints and then
>> staggered out of the pub to make your way home,
>
> That's not what happened. She went back to their hotel room with them.
> There is no evidence that they forced her to.

If you met some famous footballers, got on really well with them, lots
of banter and amusing anecdotes and they invited you to come back to
their room with them, would you refuse to go in case they raped you?

>
>> and then met some thugs who pulled your trousers down and raped you up
>> the arse,
>
> We do not know whether that resembles what happened to the woman. She
> may have given consent, or at least not demurred.

We know that she was too drunk to give consent.

>
>> would we hear you saying "okay, fair enough, it was partly my fault"?
>
> In the circumstances of the current case (not those you have just
> invented), yes.
>
> Try imagining it was your own wife. You hear evidence in court that she
> got pissed, went to a hotel room with some fit young footballers, and
> had sex with one or more of them, although she doesn't remember whether
> she consented or not. Are you seriously saying that in future you will
> trust her just as much as you have always done?

Try imagining that it was you. You get pissed, you go to a hotel room
with some fit young footballers expecting to hear more fascinating
celebrity anecdotes and maybe play some poker, and you get totally drunk
and wake up with your trousers down your ankles and a bleeding anus. You
realise that you have been raped. Would you expect your wife to regard
you as a whore, or to have some sympathy for you?

[Partac]

"The Todal" wrote in message news:9vns3f...@mid.individual.net...

Do you think she was expecting to hear some amusing anecdotes and then play
cards?

[Richard McKenzie]

In that case closing the door would suffice, wouldnt it?

[Richard McKenzie]

On Apr 24, 3:36 pm, The Todal <deadmail...@beeb.net> wrote:
> On 24/4/12 15:22, Big Les Wade wrote:
>

> > The Todal <deadmail...@beeb.net> posted

> >> On 24/4/12 14:16, Fredxx wrote:
>
> >> If you went to the pub with your mates, drank about 10 pints and then
> >> staggered out of the pub to make your way home,
>
> > That's not what happened. She went back to their hotel room with them.
> > There is no evidence that they forced her to.
>
> If you met some famous footballers, got on really well with them, lots
> of banter and amusing anecdotes and they invited you to come back to
> their room with them, would you refuse to go in case they raped you?
>

What like Barrymore when he invited that bloke back for a party.

[The Todal]

Dammit, I *knew* it was you! Tonight, I'll leave it unlocked, and you
can have your wicked way with me.

[sutartsorric]

On Apr 24, 3:43 pm, Richard McKenzie

<richardmckenzi...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 24, 3:34 pm, sutartsorric <sutartsor...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 24, 3:09 pm, Richard McKenzie
>
> > <richardmckenzi...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Why do you lock your door at night ?
>
> > It keeps the badgers and neighbours' cats out of my utility room and
> > kitchen.
>
> In that case closing the door would suffice, wouldnt it?

Probably, but I like to make doubly sure.

[Moles]

"Partac" <any...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message
news:9vnsag...@mid.individual.net...

If I read the story correctly, the guy she went to the hotel with and who
she then had sex with, was found not guilty. It was the fella who turned up
later and joined in who has been found guilty of rape.

Or have I got this wrong?

[JNugent]

Cross-post list widened (though no doubt only temporarily) because drinking
ten pints a night is completely on-topic there. Apparently.

Well, it will be if you throw in a half-dozen slices of chorizo (cut on the
bias, naturellement; they're not savages in ukrc you know).

[Richard McKenzie]

Thank you for the offer, it reminds me of the time i went to the gents
and there was a well dressed guy hanging about (to well dressed for
the attendant, i though). I assumed that he was cruising or cottaging
or whatever the correct phrase is. Not that i am that way inclined but
i thought to my self afterwards as an ego boost it would of been nice
had i been asked.

My point is we lock the door to reduce the risk of being a victim.
Just as we slog at the gym to reduce the risk of diabetes etc.

I agree that people should not be a victim of crime but surely if they
can take a simple step of locking the door or window or not getting
too pist then surely there is some onus on them to take those steps.

[Fredxx]

It isn't the same, but suppose she was drunk and at the wheel of a car.
Suppose she then ran someone over. Are you suggesting the person she
ran over isn't the victim?

I presume the law is about consent, but I wasn't aware that consent had
to be given, in fact some adverts have concentrated on "no" meaning
"no", implying it's "yes" by default?

Recently there was a security guard who was alleged to rape a drunk
victim. I guess there was insufficient proof she didn't say "yes"
rather than not saying "no".

[sutartsorric]

You are still trying to plug away at the 'blind drunk' person
committing an offence, which is the exact opposite of what happened
here.

It should be a warning to all predatory men (which seems to be a large
majority) that if you have penetrative sexual relations with anyone
who is not fit (through an excess of alcohol or other substances) to
make a considered decision, then you should expect to appear in court
at a later date.

Serves you right.

[Mentalguy2k8]

"Fredxx" <fre...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:jn6hcn$bsk$1...@dont-email.me...

> On 24/04/2012 14:58, sutartsorric wrote:
>> On Apr 24, 2:16 pm, Fredxx<fre...@nospam.com> wrote:
>>> On 24/04/2012 13:52, sutartsorric wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>> Anyone who 'befriends' a woman so drunk that she falls over in a kebab
>>>> shop, and then ends up having sex with them a short while later,
>>>> deserves every punishment they get.
>>>
>>> Do you not think there is some culpability on her part?
>>>
>>> The next time a drunk drives into a loved one and claims not to be
>>> culpable because he was so inebriated he didn't know what he was doing,
>>> I suggest you don't complain.
>>
>> I think you have this the wrong way round.
>>
>> It wasn't the blind drunk woman who committed an offence in this case.
>>
>> Whereas the drunk driving analogy of yours would need it to be.
>>
>> For your version to work, it would need to be that the driver ran into
>> a drunk loved one who collapsed into the road in front of the car. In
>> that case, the drunk person would then have to suggest the driver took
>> advantage of the situation to deliberately run over her.
>>
>> Not quite the same, I think you will agree?
>>
>
> It isn't the same, but suppose she was drunk and at the wheel of a car.
> Suppose she then ran someone over. Are you suggesting the person she ran
> over isn't the victim?

That still isn't the same thing.

[thedarkman]

On Apr 24, 12:56 pm, Del Boy <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
> Anyone help?

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/323366

[Big Les Wade]

thedarkman <A_B...@ABaron.Demon.Co.UK> posted

>On Apr 24, 12:56 pm, Del Boy <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>> Anyone help?
>
>http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/323366

It's rubbish.

Baron: "[sex is] All good and fine if all parties are consenting, and if
the participants, especially the woman, can look themselves in the
mirror the following morning."

Did you mean that sex is *not* fine if the woman cannot look herself in
the face in the morning? That if a woman feels ashamed of a sexual
liaison then it becomes retrospectively rape? If not, please explain
exactly what you *did* mean.

Baron: "What is every bit as disgusting as the behaviour of these two
men - even accepting Macdonald's acquittal - is the fact that his club,
Sheffield United, did not suspend Evans the minute he was charged. This
should have been automatic"

Why? You say this as though everybody must immediately agree with you. I
don't agree at all.

--
Les

[steve robinson]

The Todal wrote:

> On 24/4/12 15:22, Big Les Wade wrote:
> >The Todal <deadm...@beeb.net> posted
> > > On 24/4/12 14:16, Fredxx wrote:
> > >
> > > If you went to the pub with your mates, drank about 10 pints
> > > and then staggered out of the pub to make your way home,
> >
> > That's not what happened. She went back to their hotel room with
> > them. There is no evidence that they forced her to.
>
> If you met some famous footballers, got on really well with them,
> lots of banter and amusing anecdotes and they invited you to come
> back to their room with them, would you refuse to go in case they
> raped you?
>
> >
> > > and then met some thugs who pulled your trousers down and raped
> > > you up the arse,
> >
> > We do not know whether that resembles what happened to the woman.
> > She may have given consent, or at least not demurred.
>
> We know that she was too drunk to give consent.

One of the accused was found not guilty so she was in a fit enough
state at one point to agree to sex

[Cassandra]

On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 12:56:20 +0100, Del Boy <m...@privacy.net> wrote:

>Anyone help?
>

Someone definitely told me it was May Dupstory

However I was drunk at the time and don't remember a thing.

[steve robinson]

Its likely ched evens will appeal , i am sure his legal team are
digging out every bit of dirt they can about her including any other
alligation made previously

[steve robinson]

They should leave the poor girl alone.

[Redman]

"The Todal" <deadm...@beeb.net> wrote in message
news:9vnq8j...@mid.individual.net...

My my, someones got sand in their vagina, calm down love

Redman

[Mel Rowing]

"even accepting Macdonald's acquittal - is the fact that his club,
Sheffield United, did not suspend Evans the minute he was charged.

This should have been automatic, and would have in any other sport,
certainly snooker. If his club didn't suspend him, why didn't the
professional body, the Football Association, step in?"

because the contract works in two ways. Provided he turned up
regularly for training (and he was an bail) then the club would have
to keep paying him. Were they expected to pay him for months on end
to sit in the stand on matchdays? Now what if the club had suspended
him for months on end he had been acquitted? He would without doubt
have had grounds to sue for lost wages. Who would pick up that tab?

The disciplinary powers of the FA are limited to matters surrounding
breaches of the rules of the game or bringing the game into disrepute.
Action with regard to the latter, would involve preemption of the
court's verdict and that could go wrong with expensive consequences.

Then there are the fans. So long as he keeps knocking the goals in
(and he did) the will forgive anything! It would be a brave coach that
would drop him.

Now he is serving 5 years (2.5 years with remission) the difficulties
with his contract don't arise. He is not in any position to fulfil it
and so it's void. Sheffield United cannot afford to wait 2.5 years and
so he will be written out of their future plans and a replacement will
be sought (not easy) He will find it hard to get back into the game.
His biggest problem will be maitaining match fitness over such a long
time. It's one thing to play in the prison (if he is prepared so to
do) It's quite another to play at Football League Championship level.
When he comes out therefore he will be out of contract and so
available to sign for any. club Somebody may well take him on but it
won't be Sheffield .United or any other club at that level. More
likely a Conference side or more likely a small foreign club where his
past history will be less well known.

For all practical intents and purposes, he is finished!

[steve robinson]

Mel Rowing wrote:

> On Apr 24, 5:13 pm, thedarkman <A_Ba...@ABaron.Demon.Co.UK> wrote:
> > On Apr 24, 12:56 pm, Del Boy <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
> >
> > > Anyone help?
> >
> > http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/323366
>
> "even accepting Macdonald's acquittal - is the fact that his club,
> Sheffield United, did not suspend Evans the minute he was charged.
> This should have been automatic, and would have in any other sport,
> certainly snooker. If his club didn't suspend him, why didn't the
> professional body, the Football Association, step in?"

Why, until proven guilty and convicted he was looked upon as an
inocent man , suspending him would have in the eyes of some implied
he was guilty and influenced the trial.

If he was not convicted he would be able to sue the club for a rather
large amount of money

[Mentalguy2k8]

"steve robinson" <st...@colevalleyinteriors.co.uk> wrote in message
news:xn0hx8c3...@reader80.eternal-september.org...

> Mel Rowing wrote:
>
>> On Apr 24, 5:13 pm, thedarkman <A_Ba...@ABaron.Demon.Co.UK> wrote:
>> > On Apr 24, 12:56 pm, Del Boy <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>> >
>> > > Anyone help?
>> >
>> > http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/323366
>>
>> "even accepting Macdonald's acquittal - is the fact that his club,
>> Sheffield United, did not suspend Evans the minute he was charged.
>> This should have been automatic, and would have in any other sport,
>> certainly snooker. If his club didn't suspend him, why didn't the
>> professional body, the Football Association, step in?"
>
>
> Why, until proven guilty and convicted he was looked upon as an
> inocent man , suspending him would have in the eyes of some implied
> he was guilty and influenced the trial.
>
> If he was not convicted he would be able to sue the club for a rather
> large amount of money

Maybe his contract states that the club can suspend him if he's charged with
a serious crime.

[steve robinson]

Possibly, dont know how enforceable it would be though if the
suspension was without pay and he later was aquitted of the offence

[Mentalguy2k8]

"steve robinson" <st...@colevalleyinteriors.co.uk> wrote in message

news:xn0hx8c9...@reader80.eternal-september.org...

No idea, presumably he'd receive back pay if he was subsequently cleared. I
think the clubs would rather reimburse him later than have him hanging
around and creating bad publicity.

[steve robinson]

Trouble with suspending anyone it makes them look guilty

[Mentalguy2k8]

"steve robinson" <st...@colevalleyinteriors.co.uk> wrote in message

news:xn0hx8cf...@reader80.eternal-september.org...

Very true, maybe the club could have said they've put him on leave of
absence to give him time to prepare his defence. I would think that with
some players, they're not going to perform well with that on their minds
anyway.

[Michael Swift]

In article
<dc920bc1-d05c-4024...@dc2g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
sutartsorric <sutart...@googlemail.com> writes

>Anyone who 'befriends' a woman so drunk that she falls over in a kebab
>shop, and then ends up having sex with them a short while later, deserves
>every punishment they get.

Indeed, what I can't understand is they both admitted having sex with
her but his mate was acquitted.

Mike

--
Michael Swift We do not regard Englishmen as foreigners.
Kirkheaton We look on them only as rather mad Norwegians.
Yorkshire Halvard Lange

[steve robinson]

Michael Swift wrote:

> In article
> <dc920bc1-d05c-4024...@dc2g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
> sutartsorric <sutart...@googlemail.com> writes
> > Anyone who 'befriends' a woman so drunk that she falls over in a
> > kebab shop, and then ends up having sex with them a short while
> > later, deserves every punishment they get.
>
> Indeed, what I can't understand is they both admitted having sex
> with her but his mate was acquitted.
>
> Mike

She had agreed to have sex with one of them, the other turned up
later and decided that he wanted to play too

[Tim Richards]

On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 18:20:15 +0000 (UTC), "steve robinson"
<st...@colevalleyinteriors.co.uk> wrote:
>
>She had agreed to have sex with one of them, the other turned up
>later and decided that he wanted to play too

Ahhh, the classic spitroast.

I don't think the "victim" has done herself any favours by apparently
tweeting that she is going to "win big" off of the back of this
episode.

Hence the abusive tweets.

[JNugent]

On 24/04/2012 19:07, Michael Swift wrote:

> sutartsorric <sutart...@googlemail.com> writes

>> Anyone who 'befriends' a woman so drunk that she falls over in a kebab
>> shop, and then ends up having sex with them a short while later, deserves
>> every punishment they get.

> Indeed, what I can't understand is they both admitted having sex with her but
> his mate was acquitted.

As bizarre as it may sound, a rape conviction requires a proven mens rea,
which is part of the reason why such a large proportion of cases never come
to trial or end in acquittal. What the defendant reasonably believed at the
time is a relevant factor.

Not every sexual act with a partner who is the worse for drink is an act of rape.

[Moles]

In article <jn69dj$n3g$1...@news.datemas.de>, x...@x.com says...

>
> "Del Boy" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
> news:4f9694e4$0$24383$7120d902@karibu...
> > Anyone help?
> >
>
> Sky News can help. Since they accidentally showed her name during last
> night's broadcast I would assume that the information is now considered to
> be in the public domain:
>
> http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/215/laurencrawford.jpg/
>
> People are saying she has made 3 other rape allegations in the past but I
> haven't seen anyone show any proof of that.

Well, if "people" are saying it, it must be true.

[Moles]

In article <abd0b35e-041e-4c92-870c-80603a8848c2
@l18g2000vbx.googlegroups.com>, richardm...@googlemail.com says...

Next, you will suggesting that unless a women is covered from head to
foot and is accompanied by a male relative when she leaves the house,
she is "asking for it".

It is all just a question of degree.

[Moles]

In article <OptmOyG9...@obviously.invalid>, L...@nowhere.com says...
>
> The Todal <deadm...@beeb.net> posted

> >On 24/4/12 14:16, Fredxx wrote:
> >
> >If you went to the pub with your mates, drank about 10 pints and then
> >staggered out of the pub to make your way home,
>

> That's not what happened. She went back to their hotel room with them.
> There is no evidence that they forced her to.
>

That's not right.

She went back with the first man and the second came along to the hotel
room after the first man texted that he "had a bird".

This second man then joined in and it is him who has been found guilty
of rape.

[The Todal]

What, you're saying that the victim has a history of making *untruthful*
allegations? And that having failed at trial, his legal team are now
getting off their arses and doing the donkey work that they should have
done months ago?

[Tim Richards]

On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 20:05:59 +0100, The Todal <deadm...@beeb.net>
wrote:

>What, you're saying that the victim has a history of making *untruthful*
>allegations? And that having failed at trial, his legal team are now
>getting off their arses and doing the donkey work that they should have
>done months ago?

Behave.

Aren't such things prohibited from being revealed during trial?

[The Todal]

No.

If there are any grounds for accusing the complainant of dishonesty, the
allegations should be put to her in cross examination and put before a
jury. Not saved as secret ammunition for a future appeal.

I suppose the obvious comparison here is the case of Mr Dizaei.
Convicted, then appealed on the grounds that his accuser was dishonest,
had a retrial where the accuser was cross examined about the dishonesty
and then convicted yet again.

[Thomas]

Certainly not. I know of one female who has so far got FOUR men
imprisoned on four seperate occasions after making such allegations. I
asked the police for the name of the defendant and his solictitors
details so that I could make them aware but the police wouldn't tell me.
What more can I do?

[Nigel Oldfield]

On 24/04/2012 13:06, steve robinson wrote:
> Del Boy wrote:
>
>> Anyone help?
>

> Yes i could but i am not going too.

When injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty.

WM

[Nigel Oldfield]

On 24/04/2012 14:22, Mango wrote:
> "Del Boy"<m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
> news:4f9694e4$0$24383$7120d902@karibu...
>> Anyone help?
>>
>
> Sky News can help. Since they accidentally showed her name during last
> night's broadcast I would assume that the information is now considered to
> be in the public domain:
>
> http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/215/laurencrawford.jpg/
>
> People are saying she has made 3 other rape allegations in the past but I
> haven't seen anyone show any proof of that.
>
>

OH DEAR !!!!

Classic, TY.

WM

[Nigel Oldfield]

I expect they would have to get through the the bad character tests
first (which would fail)

WM

[Nigel Oldfield]

It would appear she only consented to a black penis (once you go black
....).

WM

[Zapp Brannigan]

"steve robinson" <st...@colevalleyinteriors.co.uk> wrote in message

news:xn0hx8as...@reader80.eternal-september.org...
> The Todal wrote:

>> We know that she was too drunk to give consent.
>
> One of the accused was found not guilty so she was in a fit enough
> state at one point to agree to sex

You are reversing the meaning of the verdict. It was not found proven
beyond doubt that she gave consent, but rather it could not be proven beyond
doubt that she did not give consent. They are very different kettles of
fish.

[Michael Swift]

In article <xn0hx8db...@reader80.eternal-september.org>, steve
robinson <st...@colevalleyinteriors.co.uk> writes

>> Indeed, what I can't understand is they both admitted having sex
>> with her but his mate was acquitted.
>>
>> Mike
>
>She had agreed to have sex with one of them, the other turned up later and
>decided that he wanted to play too

I thought the case rested on the fact she was so pissed she wasn't
capable of giving consent, or have I misunderstood, I didn't follow it
very closely.

If I hear anything about footballers and their antics my brain tends to
switch off to protect my sanity, not always successfully I might add.

[Cynic]

On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 19:58:37 +0100, Moles <elec...@dreams.ku> wrote:

>That's not right.

>She went back with the first man and the second came along to the hotel
>room after the first man texted that he "had a bird".

>This second man then joined in and it is him who has been found guilty
>of rape.

IIUC the woman was unable to say whether she consented or not. That
being the case, my guess is that the difference in the verdict was due
to what each man admitted to the police during interview.

A heck of a lot of people are convicted from evidence supplied by
their own words. Unless you have been arrested due to a complete
mistake that can be cleared up by a simple explanation, the best
policy is usually to give a "no comment" interview. With the
exception of an alibi defence, there is not a lot that you fail to say
that could be used as evidence against you , but there are many things
that you *might* say that would be admissions that could be used to
strengthen a prosecution case, or would prevent certain defence
tactics being used.

The more you admit (no matter how innocent), the less the prosecution
need to prove. "Yes, that's me on the CCTV recording of the riot, but
I swear I never stole anything". Stupid. Without that admission the
prosecution would have to prove BRD that you were anywhere near the
place, and with the only evidence being an indistinct CCTV image, the
CPS may well decide it's not worth prosecuting and you can avoid the
entire trauma.

--
Cynic

[Cynic]

On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 19:07:21 +0100, Michael Swift
<mike....@yeton.co.uk> wrote:

>>Anyone who 'befriends' a woman so drunk that she falls over in a kebab
>>shop, and then ends up having sex with them a short while later, deserves
>>every punishment they get.

>Indeed, what I can't understand is they both admitted having sex with
>her but his mate was acquitted.

I do not know, but it is quite possible that the convicted man
admitted during interview that he knew the woman was extremely drunk
and had not given explicit consent, whilst the aquitted man had made
no such admission, and so the jury had to consider the possibility
that the woman had given him consent (she says she cannot remember
whether she did or not) and that he was unaware of just how drunk she
was.

--
Cynic

[Cynic]

On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 16:49:44 +0000 (UTC), "steve robinson"
<st...@colevalleyinteriors.co.uk> wrote:

>> People are saying she has made 3 other rape allegations in the past
>> but I haven't seen anyone show any proof of that.
>

>Its likely ched evens will appeal , i am sure his legal team are
>digging out every bit of dirt they can about her including any other
>alligation made previously

That would be unlikely to be grounds for appeal.

--
Cynic

[Cynic]

On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 20:08:25 +0100, Tim Richards
<tricha...@googlemail.com> wrote:

>>What, you're saying that the victim has a history of making *untruthful*
>>allegations? And that having failed at trial, his legal team are now
>>getting off their arses and doing the donkey work that they should have
>>done months ago?

>Behave.

>Aren't such things prohibited from being revealed during trial?

Not of witnesses, no. Only the history of the accused - except that
that is now permitted if it involves similar events that would serve
to cast doubt on the immediate defence.

--
Cynic

[Richard McKenzie]

On Apr 25, 1:14 pm, cynic_...@yahoo.co.uk (Cynic) wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 19:07:21 +0100, Michael Swift
>

Though i initially believed she was unable to give consent based on
her drunken state in the kebab shop i believe that the guilty party
was invited to partake by the otther accused. i.e she consented to the
innocent 'accused'.

[Jethro_uk]

There is an excellent (albeit US) video on YouTube (pauses to search)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik

Where a defence attorney (followed by a policeman) gives a very cogent
set of reasons why talking to the police doesn't help you, just them.

[Moles]

"Cynic" <cyni...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4f97e667.7570531@localhost...

The jury obviously found why they did for a reason but as no one us were
party to the jury room discussion we can only speculate as to why they made
that decision.

[Tim Richards]

On Wed, 25 Apr 2012 12:18:37 GMT, cyni...@yahoo.co.uk (Cynic) wrote:

>>Aren't such things prohibited from being revealed during trial?
>
>Not of witnesses, no. Only the history of the accused - except that
>that is now permitted if it involves similar events that would serve
>to cast doubt on the immediate defence.

Ahh, thank you for clearing that up.

I knew I'd read previously where things had been revealed after trial
and mention was made of the fact that it couldn't have been mentioned
before verdict.

Which is bizarre. If I've been accused eight times previously of
setting fire to people's cats and I'm up on a ninth charge of the
same, surely the jury need to be aware of that?

[Janitor of Lunacy]

"Tim Richards" <tricha...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:78dgp7dcgef9lf78d...@4ax.com...

Just to clarify a little more; evidence of bad character of witnesses *is*
admissible if the conditions set out in section 100 of the Criminal Justice
Act 2003 are met. The position is set out more fully here:
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/bad_character_evidence/#character

[Cynic]

On Wed, 25 Apr 2012 18:34:43 +0100, Tim Richards
<tricha...@googlemail.com> wrote:

>I knew I'd read previously where things had been revealed after trial
>and mention was made of the fact that it couldn't have been mentioned
>before verdict.

>Which is bizarre. If I've been accused eight times previously of
>setting fire to people's cats and I'm up on a ninth charge of the
>same, surely the jury need to be aware of that?

The fact that you had been accused of setting fire to cats previously
is quite possibly the *only* reason you were suspected when a ninth
cat was set alight. If it also becomes evidence that is used to
convict you, then you end up with having people arrested and convicted
of a crime they had nothing to do with simply because they had been
convicted of similar crimes previously.

Think about it - at present the CPS will not prosecute a person simply
because they have a history of committing similar offences, because
they know that without that fact known by the jury, there will need to
be significant additional evidence. If however previous convictions
*was* admitted as evidence, the CPS may well decide that that is
almost all that will be needed to convict you (especially wrt emotive
cases such as child abuse etc.) - along with a smattering of weak
circumstantial evidence that would probably apply to thousands of
people. And each time a person is convicted, it will require less
evidence to convict the next time. Eventually the police will not
have to do any work to detect a crime - they just select a name at
random from a list of people who have a long history of the same sort
of crime, determine that the person does not have a verifyable alibi,
and throw the chap at a jury who will almost certainly think exactly
as you do - that past convictions are good evidence of guilt.

Where "similar fact" evidence *may* be used these days (and the change
is relatively recent) is in a case where there are certain unusual and
unique characteristics to the crime, or when the defendent is using
the same excuse as a defence that they used in a previous trial.
Whilst I do not have an issue with the second case (a person is
unlikely to make the same mistake or error of judgement a second
time), I have reservations about the first due to a fairly good
possibility that there is a "copycat" criminal who has emulated a
crime they heard about from the media or elsewhere.

--
Cynic

[Graham Murray]

cyni...@yahoo.co.uk (Cynic) writes:

> The fact that you had been accused of setting fire to cats previously
> is quite possibly the *only* reason you were suspected when a ninth
> cat was set alight. If it also becomes evidence that is used to
> convict you, then you end up with having people arrested and convicted
> of a crime they had nothing to do with simply because they had been
> convicted of similar crimes previously.

Though in some cases might it not be relevant. For example if it were
admitted that a certain situation existed and the jury would think it
unlikely in that situation someone would not act in a particular way, so
would tend to believe the accused when he denied it. Yet he had, on a
number of previous convictions for acting in this way in this same
situation.

[Cynic]

Yes - which is exactly why *that particular* situation is now
permitted as evidence under the "similar fact" rule, as I have stated.
It has to be something more pertinent to the case than the simple fact
that the defendent had been convicted of the same type of crime
previously.

--
Cynic

[tmfd...@gmail.com]

On Apr 24, 3:08 pm, Tim Richards <trichards...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 20:05:59 +0100, The Todal <deadmail...@beeb.net>

> wrote:
>
> >What, you're saying that the victim has a history of making *untruthful*
> >allegations?  And that having failed at trial, his legal team are now
> >getting off their arses and doing the donkey work that they should have
> >done months ago?
>
> Behave.
>
> Aren't such things prohibited from being revealed during trial?

I wonder if they'll reveal some of the tweets the alleged victim has
recently deleted?

The only place I've been able to find them are Google's cache of the
*French* Twitter site, oddly enough:

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:Z_XDXhG4iBAJ:fr.twitter.com/xXL_CXx/status/136549615024607232+%22lauren+crawford%22+%22win+big%22&hl=en&client=safari&gl=us&prmd=imvns&strip=1

(oh and since I'm an American posting in America under first amendment
(and second, if required!) protection, I can mention Lauren Crawford
(aka xXL_CXx) without fear!)

Mike

[steve robinson]

mi...@corestore.org wrote:

> On Apr 24, 3:08 pm, Tim Richards <trichards...@googlemail.com>
> wrote:
> > On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 20:05:59 +0100, The Todal
> > <deadmail...@beeb.net> wrote:
> >
> > > What, you're saying that the victim has a history of making

> > > untruthful allegations?  And that having failed at trial, his

> > > legal team are now getting off their arses and doing the donkey
> > > work that they should have done months ago?
> >
> > Behave.
> >
> > Aren't such things prohibited from being revealed during trial?
>
> I wonder if they'll reveal some of the tweets the alleged victim has
> recently deleted?
>
> The only place I've been able to find them are Google's cache of the

> French Twitter site, oddly enough:

>
>
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:Z_XDXhG4iBAJ:fr.twitter.com/xXL_CXx/status/136549615024607232+%22lauren+crawford%22+%22win+big%22&hl=en&client=safari&gl=us&prmd=imvns&strip=1
>
> (oh and since I'm an American posting in America under first
> amendment (and second, if required!) protection, I can mention

> ........... (aka xXL_CXx) without fear!)
>
> Mike

You are however posting to a UK website subject to UK law, your first
amendment rights do not apply in the UK .

Whilst you reside in the USA you are unlikely to be pursued however
if you ever visit the UK, Europe, any of the commonwealth countries
~(including canada) you will be subject to arrest and deportation to
the uk if you are charged in your absence.

[Moles]

"steve robinson" <st...@colevalleyinteriors.co.uk> wrote in message

news:xn0hxc6wm...@reader80.eternal-september.org...

> mi...@corestore.org wrote:
>
>> On Apr 24, 3:08 pm, Tim Richards <trichards...@googlemail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 20:05:59 +0100, The Todal
>> > <deadmail...@beeb.net> wrote:
>> >
>> > > What, you're saying that the victim has a history of making
>> > > untruthful allegations? And that having failed at trial, his
>> > > legal team are now getting off their arses and doing the donkey
>> > > work that they should have done months ago?
>> >
>> > Behave.
>> >
>> > Aren't such things prohibited from being revealed during trial?
>>
>> I wonder if they'll reveal some of the tweets the alleged victim has
>> recently deleted?
>>
>> The only place I've been able to find them are Google's cache of the
>> French Twitter site, oddly enough:
>>
>>
> http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:Z_XDXhG4iBAJ:fr.twitter.com/xXL_CXx/status/136549615024607232+%22lauren+crawford%22+%22win+big%22&hl=en&client=safari&gl=us&prmd=imvns&strip=1
>>
>> (oh and since I'm an American posting in America under first
>> amendment (and second, if required!) protection, I can mention
>> ........... (aka xXL_CXx) without fear!)
>>
>> Mike
>
> You are however posting to a UK website subject to UK law, your first
> amendment rights do not apply in the UK .

Is Usenet a "UK website"? I'd think not.

[steve robinson]

I will rephrase, your posting to a usenet group dedicated to the
legal issues in the UK, its audience will be broadly UK based.

Its ilegal to reveal such infomation within the UK and the poster has
done so .

Just like if we play silly buggers with the US defence computers we
get deported or sell batteries

[Richard McKenzie]

On Apr 27, 11:02 am, "Moles" <elect...@dreams.ku> wrote:
> "steve robinson" <st...@colevalleyinteriors.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> news:xn0hxc6wm...@reader80.eternal-september.org...
>
>
>
>
>
> > m...@corestore.org wrote:
>
> >> On Apr 24, 3:08 pm, Tim Richards <trichards...@googlemail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> > On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 20:05:59 +0100, The Todal
> >> > <deadmail...@beeb.net> wrote:
>
> >> > > What, you're saying that the victim has a history of making
> >> > > untruthful allegations? And that having failed at trial, his
> >> > > legal team are now getting off their arses and doing the donkey
> >> > > work that they should have done months ago?
>
> >> > Behave.
>
> >> > Aren't such things prohibited from being revealed during trial?
>
> >> I wonder if they'll reveal some of the tweets the alleged victim has
> >> recently deleted?
>
> >> The only place I've been able to find them are Google's cache of the
> >> French Twitter site, oddly enough:
>

> >http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:Z_XDXhG4iBAJ:fr....

>
> >> (oh and since I'm an American posting in America under first
> >> amendment (and second, if required!) protection, I can mention
> >> ........... (aka xXL_CXx) without fear!)
>
> >> Mike
>
> > You are however posting to a UK website subject to UK law, your first
> > amendment rights do not apply in the UK .
>
> Is Usenet a "UK website"? I'd think not.
>
>
>
>
>
> > Whilst you reside in the USA you are unlikely to be pursued however
> > if you ever visit the UK, Europe, any of the commonwealth countries
> > ~(including canada) you will be subject to arrest and deportation to

> > the uk if you are charged in your absence.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Is twitter ?

[Moles]

"Richard McKenzie" <richardm...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:c7f24658-c377-49c4...@i18g2000vbx.googlegroups.com...

No idea. But as Usenet is not Twitter it would not answer my question one
way or the other.

[steve robinson]

Not sure were twitter is based however if you reveal infomation
within the UK and your resident in the UK your going to be arrested.

Wether the charges will stand depends on how deep your pockets are
and if you can successfully argue that twitter is not subject to uk
law if it has no server system within our juristiction

Unfortunatly as several countries and the populations have realised
global instant communication is almost impossible to control , whilst
you can imprison your own population its not so simple internationally

[Moles]

"steve robinson" <st...@colevalleyinteriors.co.uk> wrote in message

news:xn0hxc8yu...@reader80.eternal-september.org...

But a US newsgroup, or one without a county in its name or where the charter
does not refer to a country, can be just as easily read in the UK. Surely it
is either illegal in both or in neither.

[Richard McKenzie]

On Apr 27, 11:59 am, "Moles" <elect...@dreams.ku> wrote:
> "steve robinson" <st...@colevalleyinteriors.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> news:xn0hxc8yu...@reader80.eternal-september.org...
>
>
>
>
>
> > Moles wrote:
>
> >> "steve robinson" <st...@colevalleyinteriors.co.uk> wrote in message
> >>news:xn0hxc6wm...@reader80.eternal-september.org...

> >> > m...@corestore.org wrote:
>
> >> > > On Apr 24, 3:08 pm, Tim Richards <trichards...@googlemail.com>
> >> > > wrote:
> >> >>> On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 20:05:59 +0100, The Todal
> >> >>> <deadmail...@beeb.net> wrote:
>
> >> >>> > What, you're saying that the victim has a history of making
> >> >>> > untruthful allegations? And that having failed at trial, his
> >> >>> > legal team are now getting off their arses and doing the
> >> donkey >>> > work that they should have done months ago?
>
> >> >>> Behave.
>
> >> >>> Aren't such things prohibited from being revealed during trial?
>
> >> > > I wonder if they'll reveal some of the tweets the alleged
> >> > > victim has recently deleted?
>
> >> > > The only place I've been able to find them are Google's cache
> >> > > of the French Twitter site, oddly enough:
>

> >http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:Z_XDXhG4iBAJ:fr....

>
> >> > > (oh and since I'm an American posting in America under first
> >> > > amendment (and second, if required!) protection, I can mention
> >> > > ........... (aka xXL_CXx) without fear!)
>
> >> > > Mike
>
> >> > You are however posting to a UK website subject to UK law, your
> >> > first amendment rights do not apply in the UK .
>
> >> Is Usenet a "UK website"? I'd think not.
>
> >> > Whilst you reside in the USA you are unlikely to be pursued
> >> > however if you ever visit the UK, Europe, any of the commonwealth
> >> > countries ~(including canada) you will be subject to arrest and
> >> > deportation to the uk if you are charged in your absence.
>
> > I will rephrase,  your posting to a usenet group dedicated to the
> > legal issues in the UK, its audience will be broadly UK based.
>
> > Its ilegal to reveal such infomation within the UK and the poster has
> > done so .
>
> > Just like if we play silly buggers with the US defence computers we
> > get deported or sell batteries
>
> But a US newsgroup, or one without a county in its name or where the charter
> does not refer to a country, can be just as easily read in the UK. Surely it

> is either illegal in both or in neither.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

or illegal in one but not the other

[steve robinson]

Thats the problem governments are wrestling with, it might be ilegal
here but not within other countries but a citezen travelling to such
a country could later face arrest and imprisionment

They realise they need to tread carefully because enshrining the
rights to seek retribution accross boarders for global postings can
have a nasty side effect , Many of the middle eastern countries and
china class postings that we make within these groups as subversive
which is punishable by long prision sentences possibly death . We
could if not careful end up with a situation were we all are at risk
of deportation to lands afar for comments quite legal within the UK .

[tmfd...@gmail.com]

On Apr 27, 5:24 am, "steve robinson" <st...@colevalleyinteriors.co.uk>
wrote:

> m...@corestore.org wrote:
> > On Apr 24, 3:08 pm, Tim Richards <trichards...@googlemail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 20:05:59 +0100, The Todal
> > > <deadmail...@beeb.net> wrote:
>
> > > > What, you're saying that the victim has a history of making
> > > > untruthful allegations?  And that having failed at trial, his
> > > > legal team are now getting off their arses and doing the donkey
> > > > work that they should have done months ago?
>
> > > Behave.
>
> > > Aren't such things prohibited from being revealed during trial?
>
> > I wonder if they'll reveal some of the tweets the alleged victim has
> > recently deleted?
>
> > The only place I've been able to find them are Google's cache of the
> > French Twitter site, oddly enough:
>

> http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:Z_XDXhG4iBAJ:fr....

>
>
>
> > (oh and since I'm an American posting in America under first
> > amendment (and second, if required!) protection, I can mention
> > ........... (aka xXL_CXx) without fear!)
>
> > Mike
>
> You are however posting to a UK website subject to UK law, your first
> amendment rights do not apply in the UK .
>
> Whilst you reside in the USA you are unlikely to be pursued however
> if you ever visit the UK, Europe, any of the commonwealth countries
> ~(including canada) you will be subject to arrest and deportation to
> the uk if you are charged in your absence.

Bollocks.

You can't be in contempt if you're outwith the jurisdiction. Cases in
point: there have been several cases where injunctions were obtained
in English courts preventing publication of certain information and
stories - but Scottish papers were still able to publish because it
didn't apply to them. Google if you don't believe me.

Mike

[Jeff]

>
> You can't be in contempt if you're outwith the jurisdiction. Cases in
> point: there have been several cases where injunctions were obtained
> in English courts preventing publication of certain information and
> stories - but Scottish papers were still able to publish because it
> didn't apply to them. Google if you don't believe me.
>
> Mike

Spy Catcher being a prime example

Jeff

[steve robinson]

Thats because the footballer failed to request(or his legal team)
that an injunction be put in place within Scotland which has a
seperate legal system within the UK

Thats a civil proceedure not a criminal proceedure, it only becomes a
criminal matter if the injunction is broken it wasnt.

Your actions are subject to criminal Law which is completly different.

Non of the Scottish Papers sold in England carried the story that
would have breeched the terms of the injunction and would have been
subject to criminal proceedings.

If you had posted to many of the american legal groups then its not
an issue , if you had posted to a group not uk specific probably not
an issue (governments are still playing catch up) you chose to post
to a uk targeted newsgroup .

We have several UK citizens under threat of deportation (one has been
deported) for breaking US law although the crimes commited are not or
were not at the time offences within the UK.

[steve robinson]

Injunctions are civil proceedures breaking them however is a criminal
offence, but is restricted to the limits of the UK boarders .

[Jeff]

On 27/04/2012 12:57, steve robinson wrote:

>>
>> Spy Catcher being a prime example
>>
>> Jeff
>
> Injunctions are civil proceedures breaking them however is a criminal
> offence, but is restricted to the limits of the UK boarders .
>

Spycatcher was legally on sale in Scotland, but not in England and Wales.

Jeff

[Cynic]

On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 09:24:16 +0000 (UTC), "steve robinson"
<st...@colevalleyinteriors.co.uk> wrote:

>You are however posting to a UK website subject to UK law, your first
>amendment rights do not apply in the UK .

Rubbish. Usenet is *not* a "UK website"

--
Cynic

[steve robinson]

Scotland has a separate legal system , some laws are boarder specific
, others are boarder less within the UK

[tmfd...@gmail.com]

On Apr 27, 7:57 am, "steve robinson" <st...@colevalleyinteriors.co.uk>
wrote:

With the exceptions of a VERY few offences which have
extraterritorially provisions (going abroad for underage sex is the
prime example) all UK laws are - of course! - restricted to the limits
of UK borders.

Mike

[steve robinson]

Correct and you have broken a law within our borders by naming the
victim within a meduim who's target audience is based within the UK.

It doesnt matter where you reside, the offence has been committed, if
you never intend to visit the UK or europe its unlikely that its
ever going to affect you

[tmfd...@gmail.com]

On Apr 28, 11:30 am, "steve robinson"
<st...@colevalleyinteriors.co.uk> wrote:

What UK criminal law do you claim has extraterritorial effect, to
restrict the ability of an American to speak in America?

Mike

[steve robinson]

Its not restricting what you say in America and i have never said
anything to the contrary your first amendment allows you to do so.

However your first amendment does not apply in the UK .

Placing her identity on a public forum within England is against the
law here .

[Tim Richards]

On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 16:47:10 +0000 (UTC), "steve robinson"

>
>Placing her identity on a public forum within England is against the

>law here . ^^^^^^^^
>
>

Yeah, you see there's your problem.

Right there.

[steve robinson]

I said that way back

[tmfd...@gmail.com]

On Apr 28, 1:26 pm, "steve robinson" <st...@colevalleyinteriors.co.uk>
wrote:

Exactly... posting to usenet from within the UK would probably be
technically illegal, just as with Twitter, although if enough people
do it it's impossible to police (and although there have been
arrests, the exact illegality has yet to be determined).

But UK law (obviously!) doesn't apply to people in New York or New
Delhi; a citizen of New York or New Delhi can't commit a UK criminal
offence there (with *very* limited exceptions); unless there's a
criminal charge in US or Indian law they don't have a problem.

The fact that UK citizens in the UK have easy access to information
posted anywhere in the world is one of the big changes modern
technology has made possible (as I posted in another thread); in the
past, much was reported in European newspapers which would never have
been dared in UK, but Brits generally remained ignorant about those
stories. The legal system simply can't handle that concept at present,
IMHO.

Mike

[Tim Richards]

On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 10:37:39 -0700 (PDT), "mi...@corestore.org"
<tmfd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>Exactly... posting to usenet from within the UK would probably be
>technically illegal, just as with Twitter, although if enough people
>do it it's impossible to police (and although there have been
>arrests, the exact illegality has yet to be determined).
>

> The legal system simply can't handle that concept at present,
>IMHO.
>
>Mike

Sshhhhhh.

You'll be giving our lords and masters ammunition to start censoring
the internet.

All in the name of preventing those beastly terrorists from committing
"atrocities", of course. Or stopping sexually over-active teenagers
from accessing porn so they can hone their techniques.

If it saves one child........

[Thomas]

On 28/04/2012 18:43, Tim Richards wrote:

>
> Sshhhhhh.
>
> You'll be giving our lords and masters ammunition to start censoring
> the internet.
>

"AnonymousApr 25, 2012 04:25 AM

I agree with everything you say. Why should Women like her be allowed to
destroy peoples lives. Real rape is an despicable crime, The scum who
commit such acts deserve everything they get. And i would gladly help
give it to them. I have female relatives as well.
I am however infuriated by silly little bitches like ****** ******** who
think nothing of ruining a man's career or standing in society just to
make a fast buck, And the stupid women who blindly jump to their defence
.They don't seem to understand that Its idiots like ****** ******** that
undermine the credibility of real rape victims who's lives are
undoubtedly decimated.This is why they find it difficult to persuade the
police and the courts that they really have been assaulted.
Its time to start prosecuting "drunken " women like her who cry rape.
AND to grant the same levels of anonymity to the accused. I am glad she
has been named and her bullshit has backfired on her. Now the whole
world knows who she is. I hope it happens to more girls like her. Let
this be a lesson to others. THE INTERNET WILL OUT YOU !
Good blog Ciaran."

[Tim Richards]

According to that website, the "victim" has approached the Sunday
tabloids, hawking her story to the highest bidder.

I'm sure Max Clifford is involved somewhere.

Although I'm not sure how much mileage there is in "I got drunk,
fucked by some random bloke and then fucked by another in the same
session".

Such sentiments apply to millions of British girls every Friday and
Saturday night.

[steve robinson]

Its a no brainer as far as the womans concerned its the easiest way
to take revenge or make a few quid

What is really gauling is when the man gets imprisioned often for
many years, named and shamed, lifes ruined and new evidience emerges
several years later that the woman lied.

This happened a few years back , it came to light when she tried the
same stunt again and got caught out, they reopened the case and the
man after 10 years was released , she got 12 months his life was
wrecked his wife and children had disowned him , not one life riuned
but several.

[Fredxx]

A blog on twitter suggests that she made 3 rape allegations prior to
Ched Evans. You would have thought she might have learnt by now.

[Tim Richards]

On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 19:48:51 +0100, Fredxx <fre...@nospam.com> wrote:

>
>A blog on twitter suggests that she made 3 rape allegations prior to
>Ched Evans. You would have thought she might have learnt by now.

Learned what?

It's like a comedian who rolls off joke after joke or a footballer who
takes shot after shot at goal.

Sooner or later you're going to get one laugh or one goal.

And one is all it takes.